From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Joseph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 24, 1998
253 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

August 24, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the defendant failed to object to the trial court's justification charge, this issue is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Gurganious, 214 A.D.2d 681). In any event, the court's charge, which followed the pattern jury instructions almost verbatim ( see, 1 CJI[NY] 35.15 [2] [a], at 876-879), viewed in its entirety, adequately conveyed the appropriate standard to the jury ( see, People v. Wesley, 76 N.Y.2d 555, 561; People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96; People v. Martinez, 243 A.D.2d 732).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05) or without merit.

Miller, J.P., Altman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Joseph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 24, 1998
253 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Joseph

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL JOSEPH…

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

Date published: Aug 24, 1998

Citations

253 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
676 N.Y.S.2d 880

Citing Cases

People v. Lovelace

The defendant also adduced testimony from two psychologists and a social worker that the possible effects on…

People v. Lee Battle

05; People v Fowle, 60 AD3d 691; People v Martinez, 243 AD2d 732). In any event, the trial court's charge,…