You are here: / / THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED NOT TO CONSIDER LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES...
,

THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED NOT TO CONSIDER LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES IF THEY FOUND DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY OF THE HIGHER OFFENSE ON THE BASIS OF JUSTIFICATION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the jury should have been instructed not to consider lesser offenses if it found defendant was not guilty of the greater charge on the basis of justification. The court noted that, on retrial, the jury should be instructed on two categories of assault third as lesser included offenses. Defendant was charged with attempted murder by stabbing and slashing the victim:

” This Court has held that, in a case involving a claim of self-defense, it is error for the trial court not to instruct the jurors that, if they find the defendant not guilty of a greater charge on the basis of justification, they were not to consider any lesser counts'”… . Such failure constitutes reversible error … .

Here, neither the jury instructions nor the verdict sheet on the whole adequately conveyed the principle that, if the jury found the defendant not guilty of the greater charge of attempted murder in the second degree on the basis of justification, it was not to consider any lesser counts … . On this record, it is impossible to discern whether acquittal of the top count of attempted murder in the second degree was based on the jurors’ finding of justification so as to mandate acquittal on the five lesser counts … . People v Akbar, 2019 NY Slip Op 00894, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILITY PLEA; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE AN APPEAL ALLEGING THE GUILTY PLEA WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT REST ON GAPS IN THE OPPOSING PARTY’S PAPERS; MOVING PARTY MUST ADDRESS EVERY NECESSARY ELEMENT WITH SUBSTANTIVE PROOF.
Circumstances When Hospital May Be Liable for Actions of Non-Employee Doctor Explained
Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(4)—Action Was Not “Sufficiently Similar” to Pending Action
FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY, REQUESTING AN AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Bank Did Not Negotiate a Mortgage Modification in Good Faith as Required by CPLR 3408—Applicable “Good Faith” Standard Determined and Explained
Question of Fact Raised Re: Negligent Supervision of Student by School in an Indoor Floor Hockey Game—Student Injured by Gym Teacher Who Was Participating in the Game
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE VIABLE HOWEVER, USE OF ALIAS WAS NOT A FRAUD UPON THE COURT.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF UNSECURED PLYWOOD WHICH FELL, PLAINTIFF’S... SENTENCING COURT MUST CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS EVEN WHERE IT IS NOT...