Legal Opinion

People v. Slacks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 25, 1996PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that reversible error took place by the court’s references to the trial as a "search for the truth”. The record demonstrates that the court’s charge, when viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed to the jury the appropriate standards applicable to the case and included accurate instructions regarding the burden of proof (see, People v Coleman, 70 NY2d 817; People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830). Accordingly, the challenged references did not deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial (see, People v Brown, 209 AD2d 428; People v Griffith, 200 AD2d…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. People v. BynumNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. People v. SantiagoNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
  3. People v. BallsNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. People v. CantyNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
  5. People v. ColemanNew York Court of Appeals · 1987

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. People v. SlacksNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
  2. People v. HowellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API