Legal Opinion

People v. Andujar

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

Decided June 6, 1996PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in failing to specifically charge the jury, when it reported a partial verdict, "to resume its deliberation upon the entire case”, as required by CPL 310.70 (1) (b) (ii), is unpreserved for appellate review, in that defendant failed to object when the instruction was given and this error does not fall within the narrow class of error which need not be preserved by timely objection (People v Rios, 215 AD2d 509, lv denied 86 NY2d 801; see, People v Agramante, 87 NY2d 765, 767). We decline to review the claim in the interest of justice. Were we to do…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People v. AgramonteNew York Court of Appeals · 1996
  2. People v. RiosAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. People v. CopelandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  2. People v. UrbaniakAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
  3. People v. SykesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  4. People v. FreireAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API