From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Burgos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 16, 1993
195 A.D.2d 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

July 16, 1993

Appeal from the Oneida County Court, Buckley, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Balio, Doerr, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant's contention that he is entitled to a new trial because he was deprived of the right to be present while potential jurors were questioned at the bench by the court. Because defendant's trial was held before the Court of Appeals decided People v Antommarchi ( 80 N.Y.2d 247, rearg denied 81 N.Y.2d 759), defendant had no right, statutory or constitutional, to be present at a bench conference with prospective jurors unless such conference "[concerned] the very same witnesses and events which were to be involved in the case to be tried" (People v. Mitchell, 80 N.Y.2d 519, 529).

Also without merit is defendant's contention that the court's charge was deficient because it did not require moral certainty of guilt. The evidence at trial included defendant's admissions that the drugs that he was charged with possessing were his. Because defendant's admissions could be interpreted as relevant admissions of guilt (see, People v. Rumble, 45 N.Y.2d 879, 880), there was both direct and circumstantial evidence (see, People v Emery, 159 A.D.2d 992, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 787), and the court was not, therefore, required to include the "moral certainty" language in its charge (see, People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 380).

Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. The record demonstrates that defendant had the benefit of meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147). Nor was defendant denied a fair trial by the court's evidentiary rulings. Although prejudicial evidence of drug sales was improperly admitted, the error was harmless. The proof against defendant, including his repeated admissions, was overwhelming, and there is no reasonable probability that the improperly admitted evidence affected the jury's verdict (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).

We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Burgos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 16, 1993
195 A.D.2d 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Burgos

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EDWIN BURGOS, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jul 16, 1993

Citations

195 A.D.2d 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
600 N.Y.S.2d 878

Citing Cases

People v. Moore [4th Dept 1999

05; People v. Clarke, 222 A.D.2d 1035, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 934). Were we to address the merits, we would…

People v. Moore

05; People v. Clarke, 222 A.D.2d 1035, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 934). Were we to address the merits, we would…