From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Flecha

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 1, 1990
161 A.D.2d 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 1, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.).


On September 22, 1986, defendant was arrested within minutes of selling narcotics to an undercover police officer. Defendant now claims on appeal that he was denied a fair trial by the court's reference to "reasonable person" in its reasonable doubt charge and the court's query "who speaks the truth" at the end of its charge. However, since these objections were not raised at trial, they are unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05). Were we to review these issues in the interest of justice, we would nonetheless affirm, since the court's charge as a whole adequately conveyed the concepts of reasonable doubt and the prosecutor's burden of proof (People v Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817, 819; People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 303).

Furthermore, we are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction", we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence (People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Flecha

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 1, 1990
161 A.D.2d 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Flecha

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ISABELO FLECHA…

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

Date published: May 1, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
554 N.Y.S.2d 845

Citing Cases

People v. White

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find either that they are unpreserved for…

People v. Rosa

Contrary to defendant's argument, evidence at trial indicated that the office premises in question were not…