People v. Dantzler

91 A.D.3d 883, 936 N.Y.2d 911

Opinion

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, “the Supreme Court’s charge to the jury regarding accomplice liability did not unlawfully amend the indictment or impermissibly introduce a new theory of culpability into the case” (People v Cordice, 306 AD2d 354 [2003]; see People v Buanno, 296 AD2d 600, 601 [2002]), because “[w]hether a defendant is charged as a principal or as an accomplice to a crime has no bearing on the theory of the prosecution” (People v Rivera, 84 NY2d 766, 769 [1995]).

However, the sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Angiolillo, J.E, Florio, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.