From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Chessman

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 29, 1981
430 N.E.2d 1301 (N.Y. 1981)

Opinion

Argued October 14, 1981

Decided October 29, 1981

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, EDWARD A. BAKER, J.

Denis Dillon, District Attorney (Martin I. Saperstein and William C. Donnino of counsel), for appellant. Michael J. Obus and Matthew Muraskin for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The appeal should be dismissed.

The Appellate Division (p 195), after stating its primary reason for reversal, said: "this error was further compounded by the court's total failure * * * to marshal the evidence". In view of the fact that this latter point had not been preserved for review, the court's determination was necessarily predicated at least in part upon an exercise of discretion and thus is not appealable to this court (see People v Dercole, 52 N.Y.2d 956; 957; People v Johnson, 47 N.Y.2d 124, 126). This is so despite the fact that the primary basis for the Appellate Division reversal relating to the charge concerning intent was properly preserved for review.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.

Appeal dismissed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Chessman

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 29, 1981
430 N.E.2d 1301 (N.Y. 1981)
Case details for

People v. Chessman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. CHARLES CHESSMAN…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 29, 1981

Citations

430 N.E.2d 1301 (N.Y. 1981)
430 N.E.2d 1301
446 N.Y.S.2d 248

Citing Cases

People v. Smith

Logically, a defendant cannot act with a specified purpose unless an intent is formed to carry out that…

People v. Stokes

Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove an attempted robbery since there was no proof…