Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
People v. Ortiz
People v. Ortiz, 92 A.D.2d 595 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 1983)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 1983-02-22
- Topic
- general
— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deeley, J.), rendered March 6,1980, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In that portion of its charge as to reasonable doubt, the trial court referred to establishing guilt to a “moral certainty”, as well as to wavering minds and even scales. Such language was improper (People v Cousart, 74 AD2d 877; People v McCray, 57 AD2d 632). No exception was taken, however, and examination of the entire charge indicates that the concept of reasonable doubt was correctly explained to the jury (People v Turrell, 66 AD2d 862, affd 50 NY2d 400; People v Patterson, 76 AD2d 891; People v Woods, 41 NY2d 279, 283).
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Ortiz. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 27 opinions
— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deeley, J.), rendered March 6,1980, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In that portion of its charge as to reasonable doubt, the trial court referred to establishing guilt to a “moral certainty”, as well as to wavering minds and even scales. Such language was improper (People v Cousart, 74 AD2d 877; People v McCray, 57 AD2d 632). No exception was taken, however, and examination of the entire charge indicates that the concept of reasonable doubt was correctly explained to the jury (People v Turrell, 66 AD2d 862, affd 50 NY2d 400; People v Patterson, 76 AD2d 891; People v Woods, 41 NY2d 279, 283). We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Connor, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.