Case Title: The People v. Pedro Melendez

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2011-05-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 73  
The People &c.,
            Respondent,
        v.
Pedro Melendez,
            Appellant.
Lisa A. Packard, for appellant.
Rafael Curbelo, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in not
unequivocally conveying to the jury that the People were required
to disprove defendant’s alibi defense beyond a reasonable doubt
(see People v Victor, 62 NY2d 374 [1984]) is unpreserved.  
- 1 -
- 2 -
No. 73
During the charge conference, defense counsel asked the
court to deliver an alibi charge, arguing that the People must 
disprove alibi beyond a reasonable doubt.  The court agreed to
give the charge, noting that the pattern Criminal Jury
Instruction had been amended to provide that the People could
meet that burden by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that
defendant committed the crime.  The following day, the court
showed the parties its proposed alibi charge, and again pointed
out that the charge had recently been modified.  Defense counsel
neither objected to the court’s proposed charge nor voiced an
objection to the charge after it was given to the jury, thereby
failing to alert the trial court to his current claim that the
amended charge did not adequately instruct the jury that the
People bear the burden of disproving a defendant's alibi defense
(see People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 279-280 [1983]). 
Likewise unpreserved are defendant’s contentions that
the alibi charge and certain of the prosecutor’s comments during
summation shifted the burden of proof to defendant (see CPL
470.05 [2]).
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Order affirmed, in a memorandum.  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges
Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided May 3, 2011
- 2 -