People v. Coleman

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 70 N.Y.2d 817, 523 N.Y.S.2d 433, 517 N.E.2d 1319, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 19043

Decision Date: 11/12/1987

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817, 523 N.Y.S.2d 433, 517 N.E.2d 1319, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 19043 (1987)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1987

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 2% most-cited · cited by 124 decisions

124

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.121

N.Y.2

Yates Cty. Ct.1

Most recently cited by10

2019People v. Davis N.Y. App. Div.
2017People v. Tyler N.Y. App. Div.
2013People v. Nathan N.Y. App. Div.
2013People v. Humphrey N.Y. App. Div.
2012People v. McCallum N.Y. App. Div.
2010People v. Hamer N.Y. App. Div.
2010People v. Battle N.Y. App. Div.
2009People v. Ai Jiang N.Y. App. Div.
2009People v. Rios-Davilla N.Y. App. Div.
2009People v. Simmons N.Y. App. Div.

Cites 1 case

People v. Goodfriend

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Preston Coleman, Appellant.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Steven J. Cohen and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant.
Mario Merola, District Attorney (Stacey K. Edelbaum and Billie Manning of counsel), for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Appellant was convicted after a jury trial of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03). The only issue raised on this appeal is whether the trial court’s charge on the issue of causation deprived defendant of a fair trial. Defendant contends that two isolated remarks made by the trial court, during its instructions, one of them unpreserved, removed from the jury the factual question of whether the shooting caused the death of Raul Melendes. Taken out of context, it is possible to find error in the court’s comments. When its instructions are viewed in their entirety, however, the charge was unquestionably a correct statement of the law and reserved the question of causation to the jury and upon our review of the record, there is no basis for concluding that the jury could not follow the court’s instructions (see, People v Adams, 69 NY2d 805, 806; People v Goodfriend, 64 NY2d 695, 697; People v Canty, 60 NY2d 831, 832).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.