People v. Allen, 508 N.E.2d 934 (N.Y. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Allen, 508 N.E.2d 934 (N.Y. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
37 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Baez (nyappdiv, 2019-08-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Baez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
In any event, there is no error "in denying a[n] instruction on [a lesser included offense] in the supplemental charge to the jury inasmuch as the jury did not ask for reinstruction on that issue but only on the elements of the crime[s] charged" ( People v Allen , 69 NY2d 915, 916 [1987]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Scott
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not err in refusing to include a supplemental instruction on identification in responding to the fourth jury note (see People v Allen, 69 NY2d 915, 916 [1987]; see also People v Cruz, 272 AD2d 922 , 923 [2000], affd 96 NY2d 857 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Scott
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not err in refusing to include a supplemental instruction on identification in responding to the fourth jury note (see People v Allen, 69 NY2d 915, 916 [1987]; see also People v Cruz, 272 AD2d 922 , 923 [2000], affd 96 NY2d 857 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Zapata
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In any event, the contention is without merit, as the jury did not request reinstruction regarding the evidentiary nature of the shower rod (see People v Allen, 69 NY2d 915, 916 [1987]; People v Francis, 262 AD2d 581 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Zapata
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In any event, the contention is without merit, as the jury did not request reinstruction regarding the evidentiary nature of the shower rod (see People v Allen, 69 NY2d 915, 916 [1987]; People v Francis, 262 AD2d 581 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lebrecht
N.Y. App. Term. · 2006 · confidence medium
Further, defendant did not object below that the court’s limited questioning of the People’s witnesses implied a shifting of the burden of proof (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Allen, 69 NY2d 915, 916 [1987]; People v McAloney, 2 AD3d 538, 539 [2003]), and upon a review of the record, we find no merit to the claim.
discussed Cited "see" People v. Thomas
N.Y. App. Div. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
We reject that contention (see, People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 131-132 ; People v Peruche, 243 AD2d 655 , lv denied 91 NY2d 896 ; People v Jackson, 226 AD2d 476 , lv denied 88 NY2d 987 ; People v Hill, 224 AD2d 445 , lv denied 88 NY2d 880 ; People v Dadou, 197 AD2d 868 , lv denied 82 NY2d 893 ; People v Moore, 59 AD2d 602 ; see generally, People v Allen, 69 NY2d 915, 916 ; People v Jiminez, 244 AD2d 289 , lv denied 91 NY2d 927 ).
discussed Cited "see" In re Y. K.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
At the outset, the appellant’s contentions that the court improperly shifted the burden of proof on the justification defense to her and that it erroneously applied an objective standard in evaluating that defense are unpreserved for appellate review, inasmuch as neither of these arguments was raised in the Family Court (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; see generally, People v Allen, 69 NY2d 915 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Blalock
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
The court properly declined to reread the circumstantial evidence charge, because it had no reason to “go beyond the jury’s request” (People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 132 [1984]; see also People v Allen, 69 NY2d 915 [1987]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Barry Allen, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Apr 23, 1987.
508 N.E.2d 934
1987 N.Y. LEXIS 16357
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Miriam J. Hibel and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant., Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney (Aaron F. Fishbein and Barbara D. Underwood of counsel), for respondent.
Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa Concur.
Cited by 35 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division affirming a judgment of conviction for murder in the second degree should be affirmed.

Defendant’s central contention on this appeal relates in two respects to instructions to the jury on intoxication. There is no error in denying a reinstruction on intoxication in the supplemental charge to the jury inasmuch as the jury did not ask for reinstruction on that issue but only on the elements of the crime charged.

Defendant’s objection to the primary instruction on intoxication is now framed as a violation of due process by importing a burden of proof shift or undue emphasis on credibility. It was not so framed as an objection expressed to the Trial Judge, and is not adequately preserved by the unparticularized objection to the intoxication instruction.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.