People v. Butler

2020 NY Slip Op 92, 179 A.D.3d 453, 113 N.Y.S.3d 541
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 7, 2020
Docket702/18 10716A 10716
StatusPublished

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 92 (People v. Butler) 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. Butler, 2020 NY Slip Op 92, 179 A.D.3d 453, 113 N.Y.S.3d 541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

People v Butler (2020 NY Slip Op 00092)
People v Butler
2020 NY Slip Op 00092
Decided on January 7, 2020
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on January 7, 2020
Friedman, J.P., Webber, Singh, Moulton, JJ.

702/18 10716A 10716

[*1] The People of the State of New York, Appellant,

v

Travis Butler, Defendant-Respondent.


Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Joshua P. Weiss of counsel), for appellant.

The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (Courtney S. Dixon of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert E. Torres, J.), entered on or about November 20, 2018, which, to the extent appealed from, dismissed 10 counts of the indictment upon inspection of the grand jury minutes, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion to dismiss denied, and the dismissed counts reinstated. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 7, 2019, which effectively granted reargument, and upon reargument, adhered to its original order, unanimously dismissed, as academic.

The grand jury testimony established, among other things, that after defendant and another man approached the victim, defendant cut the victim's forehead with a razor blade, the other man hit the victim in the back of the head with a hard object, and both men punched the victim. Immediately after the attack, the victim noticed that the cell phone he had used shortly before the attack was missing. Either directly or by way of reasonable circumstantial inferences, this evidence was sufficient to support an indictment for each of the robbery, larceny, weapon and assault-related charges that the court dismissed (see generally People v Swamp , 84 NY2d 725, 730 [1995]; People v Deegan , 69 NY2d 976, 979 [1987]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 7, 2020

CLERK



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

Related

People v. Swamp
646 N.E.2d 774 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Deegan
509 N.E.2d 345 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 NY Slip Op 92, 179 A.D.3d 453, 113 N.Y.S.3d 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-butler-nyappdiv-2020.