People v. Curtis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Curtis

222 A.D.2d 237, 635 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12720

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 7, 1995·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.), rendered December 6, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 31h to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly declined to charge assault in the third degree as a lesser included offense of assault in the second degree, there being no reasonable view of the evidence that the braided belt used to pummel the victim was not a dangerous instrument within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (13) (see, People v Carter, 53 NY2d 113; People v Rollins, 120 AD2d 896, Iv denied 68 NY2d 773) or that defendant did not use the belt in repeatedly striking the victim.

Defendant’s objection to the relevance of the box cutter was [238]*238insufficient to preserve his appellate claim that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value (see, People v Pettigrew, 208 AD2d 365, Iv denied 85 NY2d 912), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, we find no error since there was no argument that this was the same box cutter used in the attack and in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s participation in the assault (see, People v Sims, 209 AD2d 192, Iv denied 84 NY2d 1015). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.), rendered December 6, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 31h to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly declined to charge assault in the third degree as a lesser included offense of assault in the second degree, there being no reasonable view of the evidence that the braided belt used to pummel the victim was not a dangerous instrument within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (13) (see, People v Carter, 53 NY2d 113; People v Rollins, 120 AD2d 896, Iv denied 68 NY2d 773) or that defendant did not use the belt in repeatedly striking the victim.

Defendant’s objection to the relevance of the box cutter was [238]*238insufficient to preserve his appellate claim that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value (see, People v Pettigrew, 208 AD2d 365, Iv denied 85 NY2d 912), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, we find no error since there was no argument that this was the same box cutter used in the attack and in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s participation in the assault (see, People v Sims, 209 AD2d 192, Iv denied 84 NY2d 1015). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

People v. Curtis, 222 A.D.2d 237, 635 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12720 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

222 A.D.2d 237 (People v. Curtis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related