PEOPLE v. SIMMONS, 15 N.Y.3d 728 (2010)
Court: Court of Appeals of New York
Number: innyco20100624474
Visitors: 22
Filed: Jun. 24, 2010
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 2010
Summary: OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Although certain phrases in the trial court's supplemental instruction were inartfully worded, we are unpersuaded that the trial court's response to a jury note, which inquired about the element of intent, usurped the role of the jurors. Viewing the problematic language in the broader context of the supplemental instruction and the jury charge as a whole, the court conveyed the proper legal standards and
Summary: OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Although certain phrases in the trial court's supplemental instruction were inartfully worded, we are unpersuaded that the trial court's response to a jury note, which inquired about the element of intent, usurped the role of the jurors. Viewing the problematic language in the broader context of the supplemental instruction and the jury charge as a whole, the court conveyed the proper legal standards and r..
More
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Although certain phrases in the trial court's supplemental instruction were inartfully worded, we are unpersuaded that the trial court's response to a jury note, which inquired about the element of intent, usurped the role of the jurors. Viewing the problematic language in the broader context of the supplemental instruction and the jury charge as a whole, the court conveyed the proper legal standards and repeatedly advised the jury that it was the exclusive arbiter of the facts.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Source: Leagle
