People v. DeLucia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. DeLucia

302 A.D.2d 280, 754 N.Y.S.2d 637, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1537

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 280 (People v. DeLucia) 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. DeLucia, 302 A.D.2d 280, 754 N.Y.S.2d 637, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J.), rendered June 27, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, 15 years and 3V2 to 7 years, respectively,' unanimously affirmed.

The court’s modification of its Molineux ruling was proper. During his direct testimony, defendant opened the door to evidence about the reason that the victim owed him money when he testified that the debt had an innocuous origin. Accordingly, it was proper to permit the prosecution to establish that the debt resulted from the sale of marijuana, notwithstanding that the court had previously precluded such evidence (see People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638; People v Baez, 290 AD2d 372, lv denied 98 NY2d 635; People v Schwerbel, 224 AD2d 830, 831). At the time of the preclusion, and frequently thereafter, the court warned of the danger of opening the door to such evidence.

The trial court properly refused to submit manslaughter in the first degree as a lesser included offense of second-degree murder since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that he merely intended to inflict serious physical injury but not to cause death (see People v Frazier, 291 AD2d 211, lv denied 98 NY2d 675). Defendant shot the victim in the head from a distance of a few feet after having issued prior threats. Furthermore, defendant told an eyewitness to the shooting that the victim was dead and that the witness was going to be next. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J.), rendered June 27, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, 15 years and 3V2 to 7 years, respectively,' unanimously affirmed.

The court’s modification of its Molineux ruling was proper. During his direct testimony, defendant opened the door to evidence about the reason that the victim owed him money when he testified that the debt had an innocuous origin. Accordingly, it was proper to permit the prosecution to establish that the debt resulted from the sale of marijuana, notwithstanding that the court had previously precluded such evidence (see People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638; People v Baez, 290 AD2d 372, lv denied 98 NY2d 635; People v Schwerbel, 224 AD2d 830, 831). At the time of the preclusion, and frequently thereafter, the court warned of the danger of opening the door to such evidence.

The trial court properly refused to submit manslaughter in the first degree as a lesser included offense of second-degree murder since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that he merely intended to inflict serious physical injury but not to cause death (see People v Frazier, 291 AD2d 211, lv denied 98 NY2d 675). Defendant shot the victim in the head from a distance of a few feet after having issued prior threats. Furthermore, defendant told an eyewitness to the shooting that the victim was dead and that the witness was going to be next. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 280, 754 N.Y.S.2d 637, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-delucia-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack