People v. Boute

111 A.D.2d 398, 489 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51489
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 28, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 398 (People v. Boute) 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. Boute, 111 A.D.2d 398, 489 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

Appeal by defendants Cadette Sawyer and Raymond Boute from two judgments (one as to each of them) of the Supreme Court, Kings [399]*399County (Kooper, J.), both rendered November 16,1982, convicting them of reckless endangerment in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

The jury’s conclusion that the defendants were guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) is supported by legally sufficient evidence (cf. People v Restrepo, 93 AD2d 825; People v Ramirez, 79 AD2d 978). Also, the jury’s finding that the People had disproved the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt is not against the weight of the evidence. Neither defendant voiced an objection to the trial court’s supposedly misleading instruction as to the applicability of the defense of justification to the crime of reckless endangerment, or the court’s failure to deliver an instruction as to identification. These claims are therefore not preserved for review (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Richburg, 109 AD2d 899; People v Doctor, 98 AD2d 780). Also, although the prosecutor did not strictly confine his remarks in summation to matters within the four corners of the evidence, the trial court’s admonitions and curative instructions served to eliminate any possibility of prejudice (see, People v Cuevas, 99 AD2d 553; People v McCloskey, 92 AD2d 672). Defendant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and are without merit. O’Connor, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Howard
194 A.D.2d 628 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Haynes
189 A.D.2d 894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Fanfair
176 A.D.2d 958 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Jones
173 A.D.2d 853 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Gonzalez
142 A.D.2d 594 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. Hicks
125 A.D.2d 332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Smith
124 A.D.2d 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Goetz
131 Misc. 2d 1 (New York Supreme Court, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 A.D.2d 398, 489 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-boute-nyappdiv-1985.