People v. Andrew

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Andrew

804 N.E.2d 399, 1 N.Y.3d 546, 772 N.Y.S.2d 235, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 4098

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 18, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by50 cases

This text of 804 N.E.2d 399 (People v. Andrew) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Andrew, 804 N.E.2d 399, 1 N.Y.3d 546, 772 N.Y.S.2d 235, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 4098 (N.Y. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, arising from an incident in a rooming house where both he and the complainant resided. Defendant interposed a defense of justification. The trial court admitted complainant’s hospital record into evidence, but redacted a notation by a resident physician stating that it was impossible to obtain the complainant’s consent to surgery because he was too drunk. Defendant claims that the redaction of this information was error. We note, however, that defendant had the laboratory results, showing complainant’s toxicology level, available for his use. Moreover, defendant did not rely on the purported intoxication of the complainant. We therefore conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in redacting the notation.

Finally, the court did not violate defendant’s right to be present during the issuance of supplemental jury instructions. Defendant failed to come forward with substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity that attaches to all criminal proceedings (see People v Foster, 1 NY3d 44 [2003]; see generally People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16 [1983]; People v Richetti, 302 NY 290, 298 [1951]).

*548 Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, arising from an incident in a rooming house where both he and the complainant resided. Defendant interposed a defense of justification. The trial court admitted complainant’s hospital record into evidence, but redacted a notation by a resident physician stating that it was impossible to obtain the complainant’s consent to surgery because he was too drunk. Defendant claims that the redaction of this information was error. We note, however, that defendant had the laboratory results, showing complainant’s toxicology level, available for his use. Moreover, defendant did not rely on the purported intoxication of the complainant. We therefore conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in redacting the notation.

Finally, the court did not violate defendant’s right to be present during the issuance of supplemental jury instructions. Defendant failed to come forward with substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity that attaches to all criminal proceedings (see People v Foster, 1 NY3d 44 [2003]; see generally People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16 [1983]; People v Richetti, 302 NY 290, 298 [1951]).

*548 Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

804 N.E.2d 399, 1 N.Y.3d 546, 772 N.Y.S.2d 235, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 4098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-andrew-ny-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack