People v. Baker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Baker

147 A.D.2d 878, 538 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1882

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 23, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 147 A.D.2d 878 (People v. Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Baker, 147 A.D.2d 878, 538 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Weiss, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered January 5, 1987, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of burglary in the first degree.

In People v Baker (133 AD2d 502) this court affirmed the conviction of defendant’s brother who was jointly tried on the same charge of burglary in the first degree resulting from the same incident. Briefly, defendant, who had been drinking beer with his brother, forced his way into the dwelling of Ronald and Vanna Blair, ostensibly following Leon Ellis from whom they sought to collect a debt. After a scuffle in which he threatened Mr. Blair with a knife, defendant was ejected from [879]*879the house. His brother, who was sitting in an automobile, followed him to the back of the house where they broke open the rear door and entered the house with knives drawn. Mr. Blair got his shotgun and threatened to shoot defendant, who was holding the knife to Mrs. Blair’s face. Both brothers left the house under duress of the gun, after making further threats to harm the Blairs.

Defendant’s arguments as to the inadequacy of the jury charge with respect to the requisite finding of dual intent, and arguments directed to the charge on accessorial liability and the lesser included offense of menacing, have previously been rejected by this court (supra). His contention that the evidence was insufficient to find that he was an accessory is without merit. We similarly turn away the contention that prosecutorial misconduct occurred during summation. When viewed in the context of the entire summation and trial (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401), the remarks, if indeed improper, were rendered harmless by the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v Patterson, 88 AD2d 694, 695). Finally, defendant’s lengthy history of lawlessness including charges of violent behavior, coupled with the violent nature of the instant crime, persuades us not to disturb County Court’s exercise of discretion in the imposition of a sentence within the legal parameters.

Judgment affirmed. Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Harvey JJ., concur.

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

Weiss, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered January 5, 1987, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of burglary in the first degree.

In People v Baker (133 AD2d 502) this court affirmed the conviction of defendant’s brother who was jointly tried on the same charge of burglary in the first degree resulting from the same incident. Briefly, defendant, who had been drinking beer with his brother, forced his way into the dwelling of Ronald and Vanna Blair, ostensibly following Leon Ellis from whom they sought to collect a debt. After a scuffle in which he threatened Mr. Blair with a knife, defendant was ejected from [879]*879the house. His brother, who was sitting in an automobile, followed him to the back of the house where they broke open the rear door and entered the house with knives drawn. Mr. Blair got his shotgun and threatened to shoot defendant, who was holding the knife to Mrs. Blair’s face. Both brothers left the house under duress of the gun, after making further threats to harm the Blairs.

Defendant’s arguments as to the inadequacy of the jury charge with respect to the requisite finding of dual intent, and arguments directed to the charge on accessorial liability and the lesser included offense of menacing, have previously been rejected by this court (supra). His contention that the evidence was insufficient to find that he was an accessory is without merit. We similarly turn away the contention that prosecutorial misconduct occurred during summation. When viewed in the context of the entire summation and trial (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401), the remarks, if indeed improper, were rendered harmless by the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v Patterson, 88 AD2d 694, 695). Finally, defendant’s lengthy history of lawlessness including charges of violent behavior, coupled with the violent nature of the instant crime, persuades us not to disturb County Court’s exercise of discretion in the imposition of a sentence within the legal parameters.

Judgment affirmed. Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Harvey JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 878, 538 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-baker-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack