People v. Gillette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gillette

254 A.D.2d 121, 680 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10822

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 121 (People v. Gillette) 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. Gillette, 254 A.D.2d 121, 680 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, [122]*122Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered June 21, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 7V2 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree on the theory of “depraved indifference” (Penal Law § 120.10 [3]) but was acquitted of the crimes of attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree on the theory of intent to cause serious physical injury (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]), the court’s erroneous submission to the jury of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [4]) as a lesser included offense under the count of assault in the first degree under the “depraved indifference” count instead of the “intent” count was harmless error (see, People v Green, 56 NY2d 427, 435). Contrary to defendant’s suggestion, he was not entitled to have the counts submitted in an order that might lead the jury “to convict defendant of a lesser crime than his conduct actually warranted” (People v Johnson, 87 NY2d 357, 360).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant permission to call a detective in sur-rebuttal. The circumstances of the witness’s purported prior inconsistent statement made to this detective were exhaustively explored, and the detective’s testimony would have added nothing. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, [122]*122Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered June 21, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 7V2 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree on the theory of “depraved indifference” (Penal Law § 120.10 [3]) but was acquitted of the crimes of attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree on the theory of intent to cause serious physical injury (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]), the court’s erroneous submission to the jury of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [4]) as a lesser included offense under the count of assault in the first degree under the “depraved indifference” count instead of the “intent” count was harmless error (see, People v Green, 56 NY2d 427, 435). Contrary to defendant’s suggestion, he was not entitled to have the counts submitted in an order that might lead the jury “to convict defendant of a lesser crime than his conduct actually warranted” (People v Johnson, 87 NY2d 357, 360).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant permission to call a detective in sur-rebuttal. The circumstances of the witness’s purported prior inconsistent statement made to this detective were exhaustively explored, and the detective’s testimony would have added nothing. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 121, 680 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gillette-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack