From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 15, 2002
298 A.D.2d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2000-11597

Submitted September 26, 2002.

October 15, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), rendered December 13, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Barbara Lerner of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Jeanette Lifschitz of counsel; Brian Michels on the brief), for respondent.

Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the trial court's response to a jury note impermissibly shifted the burden of proof is unpreserved for appellate review due to his failure to object or make any request with respect to the court's eventual response (see CPL 470.05; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., SMITH, GOLDSTEIN and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 15, 2002
298 A.D.2d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. DARRELL CLARK, appellant

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

Date published: Oct 15, 2002

Citations

298 A.D.2d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
748 N.Y.S.2d 272

Citing Cases

People v. Romgobind

The defendant's contention that the court failed to respond meaningfully to the jury's note regarding the…

People v. Marsh

The defendant's contention that she was deprived of a fair trial by the County Court's erroneous instruction…