People v. Bastien
| Decision Date | 10 February 1992 |
| Citation | 580 N.Y.S.2d 54,180 A.D.2d 691 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Lesly BASTIEN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (De Nice Powell, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty, Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Roseann B. MacKechnie, and Camille O'Hara Gillespie, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, MILLER and COPERTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered June 13, 1990, convicting him of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the Trial Judge failed to instruct the jury adequately that a person who operates a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner is presumed to know that he does not have such consent (see, Penal Law § 165.05[1]. We disagree. The court's instructions closely followed the New York Criminal Jury Instructions (see, 2 CJI[NY] PL 165.05[1], at 971-975), and were thorough and not misleading (see, People v. Rivers, 140 A.D.2d 897, 898, 528 N.Y.S.2d 714). The Supreme Court correctly told the jury that the presumption was permissible and that "the fact that you may draw such inference does not shift to the defendant any burden of proof whatsoever" (see, People v. Simmons, 32 N.Y.2d 250, 344 N.Y.S.2d 897, 298 N.E.2d 76).
The defendant also asserts that the charge unfairly focused solely upon the proof adduced by the prosecution. This contention is not preserved for appellate review since no objection was made to the charge on this ground (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. McDonald, 144 A.D.2d 701, 702, 535 N.Y.S.2d 20). In any event, the court's failure to refer to the defendant's evidence was not error. The trial was short, there were few witnesses, and the defendant's position was made clear to the jury during defense counsel's summation (see, People v. McDonald, supra, at 702, 535 N.Y.S.2d 20). The court was not required to explain all of the parties' contentions or discuss all of the alleged inconsistencies in the evidence (see, People v. Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665, 485 N.Y.S.2d 250, 474 N.E.2d 610; People v. McDonald, supra, 144 A.D.2d at 702, 535 N.Y.S.2d 20).
The defendant argues that the so-called "Allen" instructions (see, Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528) coerced the jurors into returning a verdict after they had twice reported a deadlock. Allen instructions are proper provided they do not (1) urge that a dissenting juror abandon his or her own conviction and join in the opinion of other jurors, (2) attempt to coerce or compel the jurors to agree upon a particular verdict, or (3) shame the jurors into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Drummond
...verdict, or (3) shame the jury into reaching a verdict (see People v. Smith, 135 A.D.3d at 971, 23 N.Y.S.3d 391; People v. Bastien, 180 A.D.2d 691, 692, 580 N.Y.S.2d 54 ). Here, the court's charge was balanced and proper, and was directed to all jurors in general. In essence, the court enco......
-
People v. Santiago
...78 N.Y.2d 878, 573 N.Y.S.2d 442, 577 N.E.2d 1034; People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725, 408 N.Y.S.2d 473, 380 N.E.2d 299; People v. Bastien, 180 A.D.2d 691, 692, 580 N.Y.S.2d 54; People v. Fleury, 177 A.D.2d 504, 575 N.Y.S.2d 713; see also, People v. Antommarchi, supra, 80 N.Y.2d at 247, 590 N.Y.......
-
People v. Anderson
...310.50[2] ; People v. Robinson, 45 N.Y.2d 448, 452, 410 N.Y.S.2d 59, 382 N.E.2d 759 ; see also CPL 310.70[1][a] ; People v. Bastien, 180 A.D.2d 691, 692, 580 N.Y.S.2d 54 ; People v. Adams, 123 A.D.2d 355, 355, 506 N.Y.S.2d 367 ). The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for app......
-
People v. Smith
...to coerce or compel the jury to reach a particular verdict, or (3) shame the jury into reaching a verdict (see People v. Bastien, 180 A.D.2d 691, 692, 580 N.Y.S.2d 54 ; People v. Austin, 168 A.D.2d 502, 502–503, 562 N.Y.S.2d 745 ). In this case, the instructions to the jury were free of the......