People v. McLaughlin
| Decision Date | 01 October 1984 |
| Citation | 480 N.Y.S.2d 151,104 A.D.2d 829 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Robert McLAUGHLIN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Rafael Abramovitz, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Allan P. Root and Shulamit Rosenblum, Asst. Dist. Attys., Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and WEINSTEIN, RUBIN and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered February 11, 1981, convicting him of murder in the second degree and four counts of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence and (2) upon permission, from an order of the same court, dated April 22, 1982, denying defendant's motion to vacate the aforesaid judgment.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Defendant contends for the first time on appeal that the trial court's alibi charge to the jury was inadequate. The trial court erroneously omitted to instruct the jury that the prosecutor had the burden of disproving an alibi beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Victor, 62 N.Y.2d 374, 477 N.Y.S.2d 97, 465 N.E.2d 817; People v. Daniels, 88 A.D.2d 392, 453 N.Y.S.2d 699). Absent this warning, the trial court's repeated instructions that the jury must determine the truth of the alibi and that an alibi is the best defense an innocent man can offer, while not erroneous on its face, may be perceived as improperly shifting to defendant the burden of proving the alibi. However, the matter has not been preserved for appellate review because defendant did not take any exception to the alibi charge that would have alerted the Trial Judge to the deficiency so as to afford her an opportunity to correct said error. Consequently, defendant must be deemed to have waived any objection to the alibi charge (see People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 464 N.Y.S.2d 454, 451 N.E.2d 212). Similarly, defendant has waived any objection to the trial court's identification charge. The trial court read its proposed identification instructions to defense counsel in chambers. Counsel specifically stated that he had nothing to add to the proposed charge. After the charge had been delivered to the jury, the trial court solicited exceptions or requests to charge. None were made by defense counsel. Therefore, any claimed deficiency in the charge on identification has not been preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05, subd....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cruz v. New York City Transit Authority
... ... As Cruz sat, a number of young people began to climb the stairway. One of these youths "brushed" against Cruz, who fell to the sidewalk below. His resultant injuries have rendered him ... ...
-
People v. Wolcott
...any objection must be deemed waived (People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279-280, 464 N.Y.S.2d 454, 451 N.E.2d 212; People v. McLaughlin, 104 A.D.2d 829, 480 N.Y.S.2d 151). In any event, these statements simply related to the credibility of the alibi witnesses, not the actual commission of any......
-
People v. Spruill
...defendant's alibi beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Victor, 62 N.Y.2d 374, 477 N.Y.S.2d 97, 465 N.E.2d 817; People v. McLaughlin, 104 A.D.2d 829, 480 N.Y.S.2d 151). In addition, a portion of the charge which indicated that only the defense witnesses could be considered interested wi......
-
People v. McCorkle
...how to assess the identification evidence was error (see, People v. Scott, 108 A.D.2d 882, 883, 485 N.Y.S.2d 379; People v. McLaughlin, 104 A.D.2d 829, 830, 480 N.Y.S.2d 151). Similarly, the defendant did not raise at trial his present claim that the testimony as to the complainant's descri......