People v. Robinson

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 88 N.Y.2d 1001, 648 N.Y.S.2d 869, 671 N.E.2d 1266, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 2694

Decision Date: 9/10/1996

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Robinson, 88 N.Y.2d 1001, 648 N.Y.S.2d 869, 671 N.E.2d 1266, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 2694 (1996)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1996

Citation analytics

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

★Highly CitedTop 3% most-cited · cited by 82 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.75

E.D.N.Y.2

N.Y.1

N.Y. App. Term1

N.Y. App. Term.1

NY1

Most recently cited by10

2025People v. Jackson N.Y. App. Div.
2025People v. Spinks N.Y. App. Div.
2025People v. Johnson NY
2025People v. Hogle N.Y. App. Div.
2024People v. Toran N.Y. App. Div.
2024People v. Mayette N.Y. App. Div.
2023People v. Mason N.Y. App. Div.
2022People v. Adorno N.Y. App. Div.
2022People v. Maharrey N.Y. App. Div.
2021People v. Matthews (Robert) N.Y. App. Term.

Cites 1 case

People v. Robinson

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

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Norma Jean Robinson, Appellant.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Stephen J. Pittari, White Plains, and Jacqueline F. Oliva for appellant.
Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney of Westchester County, White Plains (Maryanne Luciano of counsel), for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted, as an accomplice, of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. On her appeal to the Appellate Division, defendant contended, among other things, that the trial court’s instruction to the jury on reasonable doubt impermissibly shifted the burden of proof. The majority of the Appellate Division held that this contention was unpreserved (218 AD2d 673, 674). We agree, because to frame and preserve a question of law reviewable by this Court, an objection or exception must be made with sufficient specificity at the trial, when the nisi prius court has an opportunity to consider and deal with the asserted error (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson, 36 NY2d 224). That was not done here.

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.