People v. Gumbs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gumbs

304 A.D.2d 365, 756 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3762

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

DecidedApril 8, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 365 (People v. Gumbs) 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. Gumbs, 304 A.D.2d 365, 756 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Corriere, J.), rendered February 25, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a juvenile offender, to a term of nine years to life, unanimously affirmed.

[366]*366The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting into evidence a single crime scene photograph of the victim which was relevant to the essential element of homicidal intent and which illustrated and corroborated the other evidence concerning the victim’s injuries (see People v Stevens, 76 NY2d 833, 835-836 [1990]; People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 369-370 [1973], cert denied 416 US 905 [1974]). The “sole purpose” for introducing the photograph was not “to arouse the emotions of the jury [or] to prejudice the defendant” (People v Wood, 79 NY2d 958, 960 [1992] [emphasis omitted]).

The court’s instruction to the jury, given in connection with a stipulation, contained language that was appropriate to prevent undue speculation (cf. People v Primo, 96 NY2d 351, 355-357 [2001]). Nothing in this instruction undermined defendant’s ability to present a defense. On the contrary, the court extended great leeway to defendant in this regard.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Corriere, J.), rendered February 25, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a juvenile offender, to a term of nine years to life, unanimously affirmed.

[366]*366The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting into evidence a single crime scene photograph of the victim which was relevant to the essential element of homicidal intent and which illustrated and corroborated the other evidence concerning the victim’s injuries (see People v Stevens, 76 NY2d 833, 835-836 [1990]; People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 369-370 [1973], cert denied 416 US 905 [1974]). The “sole purpose” for introducing the photograph was not “to arouse the emotions of the jury [or] to prejudice the defendant” (People v Wood, 79 NY2d 958, 960 [1992] [emphasis omitted]).

The court’s instruction to the jury, given in connection with a stipulation, contained language that was appropriate to prevent undue speculation (cf. People v Primo, 96 NY2d 351, 355-357 [2001]). Nothing in this instruction undermined defendant’s ability to present a defense. On the contrary, the court extended great leeway to defendant in this regard.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 365, 756 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gumbs-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack