People v. Block

168 A.D.2d 940, 565 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16483
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 21, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 940 (People v. Block) 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. Block, 168 A.D.2d 940, 565 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues that the evidence of physical injury was not sufficient to support the conviction for assault in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 10.00 [9]). The police officer testified that, in the scuffle with defendant, he suffered scrapes and bruises on his legs and bruises on his knees. He sustained bite wounds to the left shoulder, which broke the skin and caused him "nagging pain” for several days until they began to heal. The officer was given oxygen at the scene, then transported to the hospital emergency room, where he reported that he hurt "all over”. He was given a tetanus shot and pain medication, and he missed the following two days of work. In our view, that evidence is sufficient to support the conviction for second degree assault (see, People v Lundquist, 151 AD2d 505, 507, lv denied 74 NY2d 849; People v Williams, 147 AD2d 960, lv denied 73 NY2d 1023; cf., People v Prosser, 130 AD2d 972).

We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the prosecutor provided racially neutral reasons for exercising peremptory challenges to two potential black jurors (see, People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350, 355, cert granted — US —, 112 L Ed 2d 201). Whether defendant was so intoxicated as to be unable to form a criminal intent was a question of fact for the jury, and the jury’s resolution of that issue in favor of the prosecution is supported by the evidence (see, People v Lang, 143 AD2d 685). We have examined the remaining issues raised by defendant and find them to be lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J.—assault, second degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Law-ton, JJ.

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

Related

STILLWAGON, II, DONALD F., PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
People v. Lucas
291 A.D.2d 890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Fonseca
208 A.D.2d 949 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Fortuna
188 A.D.2d 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 A.D.2d 940, 565 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-block-nyappdiv-1990.