PEOPLE v. CRENSHAW (1998)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Termaine CRENSHAW, Appellant.

Decided: September 21, 1998

Before BRACKEN, J.P., RITTER, THOMPSON and KRAUSMAN, JJ.

M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Paul Wiener of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Victor Barall of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), rendered July 29, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the court erred in not responding to a note from the foreperson of the jury (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Ramkisson, 245 A.D.2d 393, 666 N.Y.S.2d 447). In any event, the defendant was not prejudiced by the court's failure to respond to the note before accepting the verdict (see, People v. Agosto, 73 N.Y.2d 963, 540 N.Y.S.2d 988, 538 N.E.2d 340). The record is devoid of any evidence in support of the defendant's contention that the verdict was coerced.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network