People v. Turton
| Decision Date | 27 November 1995 |
| Citation | 634 N.Y.S.2d 156,221 A.D.2d 671 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Derrick TURTON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (William B. Carney, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Jane S. Meyers, and Lori Glachman, of counsel), for respondent.
Before O'BRIEN, J.P., and PIZZUTO, SANTUCCI and JOY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered October 19, 1993, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
A court in its charge need not marshal all the evidence, but must "state the material legal principles applicable to the particular case" (CPL 300.10[2]; People v. James, 194 A.D.2d 558, 598 N.Y.S.2d 334). "Nor is the court required to explain all the contentions of the parties or outline all the inconsistencies in the evidence" (People v. Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665, 667, 485 N.Y.S.2d 250, 474 N.E.2d 610; see also, People v. James, supra ). However, if the court does refer to the evidence, it must do so fairly and in an even-handed manner (People v. Williamson, 40 N.Y.2d 1073, 1074, 392 N.Y.S.2d 255, 360 N.E.2d 933; see also, People v. Culhane, 45 N.Y.2d 757, 408 N.Y.S.2d 489, 380 N.E.2d 315, cert. denied 439 U.S. 1047, 99 S.Ct. 723, 58 L.Ed.2d 706; People v. Waters, 195 A.D.2d 613, 600 N.Y.S.2d 746; People v. James, supra ). "The critical issue on review is always whether [the] deficiency by [the court] in that respect denied defendant a fair trial" (People v. Saunders, supra, at 667, 485 N.Y.S.2d 250, 474 N.E.2d 610).
Here, it cannot be said that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial. The court marshaled the evidence in an even-handed manner and did not give undue emphasis to the People's evidence or theories. In addition, the court instructed the jurors that nothing the court stated was evidence, and that the jurors were "the exclusive judges of the facts, and * * * what I may say during the course of this charge by way of illustration or just so that you understand the relevance of certain points of law, should in no way be taken by you as suggesting that I think you should reach a particular verdict".
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Correa
... ... Nor was it necessary for the Supreme Court, in essence, to marshal the facts so as to elucidate the defense theory, where as here, the issues were simple and the defendant's position was made clear to the jury in defense counsel's summation ( see People v. Turton, 221 A.D.2d 671, 634 N.Y.S.2d 156; People v. Bacchus, 183 A.D.2d 720, 583 N.Y.S.2d 298). The Supreme Court's charge correctly recited the statutory elements of the crime and stated the correct rules to be applied ( see People v. Russell, 266 N.Y. 147, 153, 194 N.E. 65; People v. Broxton, 34 A.D.3d ... ...
-
People v. Lusby
... ... Lomax, 50 N.Y.2d 351, 357, 428 N.Y.S.2d 937, 406 N.E.2d 793). Finally, the court's instruction concerning the North Carolina certificate of conviction of the victim was neutral on its face and did not deny defendant a fair trial (see, People v. Turton, 221 A.D.2d 671, 634 N.Y.S.2d 156, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 887, 645 N.Y.S.2d 461, ... ...
- People v. Tucker
-
People v. Kirshtein
... ... In giving a jury charge the trial court must state the material legal principles applicable to the case (CPL 300.10; see also, People v. Turton, 221 A.D.2d 671, 634 N.Y.S.2d 156; People v. James, 194 A.D.2d 558, 598 N.Y.S.2d 334). To establish the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance, a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance, and (b) ... ...