People v. Brewington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brewington

145 A.D.2d 962, 536 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14023

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 145 A.D.2d 962 (People v. Brewington) 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. Brewington, 145 A.D.2d 962, 536 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14023 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of three counts of murder in the second degree, all arising from the robbery, rape and brutal beating of a 73-year-old woman. On appeal, defendant claims that items seized from his apartment should have been suppressed; that the trial court erred by summarily rejecting his request to discharge the jury panel, by admitting into evidence a sample of defendant’s pubic hairs and an expert’s testimony concerning a comparison of defendant’s hairs with hairs combed from the victim, and by referring to the man inside the victim’s apartment as the "perpetrator”; that the prosecutor’s comment during summation constituted misconduct; and that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the felony murder conviction based upon robbery.

The suppression court credited the testimony of a police witness and found that the written consent to a search of defendant’s apartment was executed voluntarily by his wife. Because this finding is supported by the record and is not erroneous as a matter of law, it should not be disturbed on appeal (People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, cert denied 400 US 851; People v Valencia, 126 AD2d 764).

[963]*963The motion to discharge the jury panel was not made in writing and advanced no claim that statutory requirements had not been satisfied or that blacks had been intentionally and systematically excluded from the panel. Under these circumstances, the court did not err by denying the motion without a hearing (CPL 270.10; see also, People v Parks, 41 NY2d 36; People v Lanahan, 96 AD2d 675).

The court’s reference to the person inside the victim’s apartment as the "perpetrator” was improper as it withdrew an issue of fact from the jury’s consideration (People v Davis, 73 AD2d 693; see also, People v Johnson, 140 AD2d 954, lv denied 72 NY2d 920). Proof of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, however, and there is no reasonable likelihood that absent this error, defendant would have been acquitted. Thus, the error was harmless (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Johnson, supra). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining claims and find them to lack merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of three counts of murder in the second degree, all arising from the robbery, rape and brutal beating of a 73-year-old woman. On appeal, defendant claims that items seized from his apartment should have been suppressed; that the trial court erred by summarily rejecting his request to discharge the jury panel, by admitting into evidence a sample of defendant’s pubic hairs and an expert’s testimony concerning a comparison of defendant’s hairs with hairs combed from the victim, and by referring to the man inside the victim’s apartment as the "perpetrator”; that the prosecutor’s comment during summation constituted misconduct; and that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the felony murder conviction based upon robbery.

The suppression court credited the testimony of a police witness and found that the written consent to a search of defendant’s apartment was executed voluntarily by his wife. Because this finding is supported by the record and is not erroneous as a matter of law, it should not be disturbed on appeal (People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, cert denied 400 US 851; People v Valencia, 126 AD2d 764).

[963]*963The motion to discharge the jury panel was not made in writing and advanced no claim that statutory requirements had not been satisfied or that blacks had been intentionally and systematically excluded from the panel. Under these circumstances, the court did not err by denying the motion without a hearing (CPL 270.10; see also, People v Parks, 41 NY2d 36; People v Lanahan, 96 AD2d 675).

The court’s reference to the person inside the victim’s apartment as the "perpetrator” was improper as it withdrew an issue of fact from the jury’s consideration (People v Davis, 73 AD2d 693; see also, People v Johnson, 140 AD2d 954, lv denied 72 NY2d 920). Proof of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, however, and there is no reasonable likelihood that absent this error, defendant would have been acquitted. Thus, the error was harmless (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Johnson, supra). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining claims and find them to lack merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A.D.2d 962, 536 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brewington-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack