Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's charge on accessorial liability was not erroneous. The charge, which was, in part, taken verbatim from Penal Law § 20.00, clearly conveyed to the jury that the defendant must have possessed the mental culpability required for the crimes charged and that his conduct must have been intentional and knowing (see, People v Jordan,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.