People v. Curtis

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Curtis

679 N.E.2d 634, 89 N.Y.2d 1003, 657 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 314

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 679 N.E.2d 634 (People v. Curtis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Curtis, 679 N.E.2d 634, 89 N.Y.2d 1003, 657 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 314 (N.Y. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of assault in the second degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment and a Judge of this Court granted leave to appeal. We now affirm. The courts below correctly concluded that no reasonable view of the evidence supported the requested charge-down to third degree assault under all the circumstances of the evidence adduced in this case, including the nature, manner and use of the belt (see, CPL 300.50). The trial court’s unchallenged instruction to the jury concerning its fact-finding responsibility with respect to the dangerous instrumentality element was necessary to satisfy the requirement that the People prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The instruction did not create a defense entitlement to a charge-down to assault in the third degree (see, People v Butler, 84 NY2d 627, 630).

We have considered the other issues tendered to this Court and are satisfied that they are meritless.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

*1005 Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of assault in the second degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment and a Judge of this Court granted leave to appeal. We now affirm. The courts below correctly concluded that no reasonable view of the evidence supported the requested charge-down to third degree assault under all the circumstances of the evidence adduced in this case, including the nature, manner and use of the belt (see, CPL 300.50). The trial court’s unchallenged instruction to the jury concerning its fact-finding responsibility with respect to the dangerous instrumentality element was necessary to satisfy the requirement that the People prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The instruction did not create a defense entitlement to a charge-down to assault in the third degree (see, People v Butler, 84 NY2d 627, 630).

We have considered the other issues tendered to this Court and are satisfied that they are meritless.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

*1005 Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

679 N.E.2d 634, 89 N.Y.2d 1003, 657 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-curtis-ny-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack