People v. Watson, 78 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Watson, 78 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Miller (nyappdiv, 1984-07-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Miller
N.Y. App. Div. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
To impose a more severe sentence in the absence of such circumstances would serve to punish a defendant for having successfully exercised his right to postjudgment review (North Carolina v Pearce, supra, p 726; see, also, People v Simone, 78 AD2d 685), even where the judgment challenged on appeal resulted from a plea of guilty (Simpson v Rice, 395 US 711 , decided with North Carolina v Pearce, supra). 11 The decision in North Carolina v Pearce (supra) “was premised on the apparent need to guard against vindictiveness in the resentencing process” (Chaffin v Stynchcombe, 412 US 17, 25 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Anthony Watson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 20, 1980.
78 A.D.2d 685
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 17, 1978, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The trial court’s instructions with respect to the law relating to identification evidence and the factors to be weighed by the jury in assessing such evidence were adequate. Although the trial court erred in failing to relate these legal principles to the evidence adduced at trial (see People v Carney, 73 AD2d 972), we are of the view that, under the circumstances of this case, such error was cured when, at the jury’s request during its deliberations, the jury was read all of the testimony of the two witnesses who identified defendant (see People v Vargas, 74 AD2d 859). We have examined the remaining contentions raised by the defendant and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.