LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

PEOPLE v BROWN Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: PEOPLE, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>082_0869, Affirm, Entrapment, Commit, Penal Law, Undercover Officers, Judge, Request, Charge, Evidence, Ny2d, Memorandum, County Court, Affirmative Defense, Butts, Inducement, Encouragement, Offense, Supra, Testimony, Undercover Police, Publication, Conviction, Syracuse, City, Jury, Warrant, Standing, Oral Sodomy , ContentID: 120250482

Case Documents
1 1993-12-16 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 124391
2 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 2 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
AFFIRM
ENTRAPMENT
COMMIT
COURT
PENAL LAW
UNDERCOVER OFFICERS
JUDGE
REQUEST
CHARGE
EVIDENCE
NY2D
MEMORANDUM
COUNTY COURT
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
BUTTS
INDUCEMENT
ENCOURAGEMENT
OFFENSE
SUPRA
TESTIMONY
UNDERCOVER POLICE
PUBLICATION
CONVICTION
SYRACUSE
CITY
JURY
WARRANT
STANDING
ORAL SODOMY


  THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. WALTER BROWN, APPELLANT.

    82 N.Y.2d 869, 631 N.E.2d 106, 609 N.Y.S.2d 164 (1993).
    December 16, 1993

   CoCt No. 247 (1993 NY Int. 260)
   Decided December 16, 1993
     _________________________________________________________________

   This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
   publication in the New York Reports.

   Joseph A. Barrette, for Appellant.
   Gordon J. Cuffy, for Respondent.

   MEMORANDUM:

   The order of the County Court should be affirmed.

   Defendant was convicted in Syracuse City Court of patronizing a
   prostitute in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 230.03). County Court,
   Onondaga County, affirmed the conviction. Defendant's principal
   argument on appeal to this Court is that it was reversible error for
   the Trial Judge to deny his request for a jury charge on the
   affirmative defense of entrapment (Penal Law § 40.05). We affirm,
   finding no evidentiary basis on this record to warrant the requested
   instruction.

   A trial court must charge entrapment on a defendant's request where
   the evidence adduced at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable
   to the defendant, reasonably and sufficiently supports the defense
   (see, People v Butts, 72 NY2d 746, 748-750; People v Watts, 57 NY2d
   299, 301). Defendant bore the burden of establishing entrapment by a
   preponderance of the evidence (Penal Law § 25.00(2)), that is, to
   demonstrate that: (1) he was actively induced or encouraged to commit
   the offense by a public official; and (2) such inducement or
   encouragement created a "substantial risk" that the offense would be
   committed by defendant who was not otherwise disposed to commit it
   (Penal Law § 40.05; People v Butts, supra, at 750-751; People v
   Alwadish, 67 NY2d 973, 974).

   There was trial testimony adduced by the People that at approximately
   10:45 p.m. on May 22, 1990 a male undercover police sergeant dressed
   as a female was standing near a street corner in the City of Syracuse
   when defendant pulled over to the adjacent curb in front of him. The
   undercover officer testified that he approached the front passenger
SNIPPETS:
  • This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • Defendant was convicted in Syracuse City Court of patronizing a prostitute in the fourth
  • County Court, Onondaga County, affirmed the conviction.
  • Defendant's principal argument on appeal to this Court is that it was reversible error for
  • We affirm, finding no evidentiary basis on this record to warrant the requested instruction.
  • A trial court must charge entrapment on a defendant's request where the evidence adduced at
  • Defendant bore the burden of establishing entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence ),
  • There was trial testimony adduced by the People that at approximately 10:45 p.m. on May 22,
  • The undercover officer testified that he approached the front passenger window of the car and
  • The undercover officers and the defendant agreed that the conversation lasted approximately
  • Defendant's testimony denying that he committed the proscribed conduct does not alone support
  • Merely asking a defendant to commit a crime is not such inducement or encouragement as to
  •    |