People v. Thomas
| Citation | 424 N.Y.S.2d 496,74 A.D.2d 614 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Levi THOMAS, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 11 February 1980 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
William E. Hellerstein, New York City (Robert S. Dean, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Laurie Stein Hershey, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and DAMIANI, TITONE and MANGANO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 6, 1978, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
The court charged the jury that "a person is presumed to intend the natural consequence of his act", a charge which was disaffirmed by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Sandstrom v. Montana, --- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39. However, intent was not at issue. Defense counsel conceded, in his summation, that the issue in this case was that of identification. Therefore, any error in this portion of the charge was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).
Although the trial court refused to deliver the defendant's proposed charge as to the issue of identification, the charge given sufficiently alerted the jury to the possibility of mistaken identification and, hence, was proper.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cunningham
...used word "presumed"), have affirmed judgments (see People v. Collazo, App.Div., 425 N.Y.S.2d 380 (2d Dept. 1980); People v. Thomas, App.Div., 424 N.Y.S.2d 496 (2d Dept. 1980); People v. Blum, 72 A.D.2d 691, 421 N.Y.S.2d 359 (1st Dept. 1979); People v. Reyes, 71 A.D.2d 1034, 420 N.Y.S.2d 39......
-
People v. Sanchez
...59 N.Y.2d 273, 279, 464 N.Y.S.2d 454, 451 N.E.2d 212; People v. Perez, 77 N.Y.2d 928, 569 N.Y.S.2d 600, 572 N.E.2d 41; People v. Thomas, 74 A.D.2d 614, 424 N.Y.S.2d 496; People v. Julian, 41 NY2d 340, 342-344, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310). Moreover, we find that the court's charge, vi......
-
People v. Dolphin
...or other exigent circumstances which required a showup, rather than utilizing the preferred procedure of a lineup (cf. People v. Thomas, 72 A.D.2d 910, 424 N.Y.S.2d 496. In view of the unnecessarily suggestive atmosphere, the complainant's obvious emotional distress, the limited opportunity......