People v. John F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. John F.

88 A.D.2d 730, 451 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16969

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

DecidedMay 27, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 730 (People v. John F.) 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. John F., 88 A.D.2d 730, 451 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Fulton County (Best, J.), rendered May 7, 1981, which adjudicated defendant a youthful offender. While defendant and another young man were engaged in a fist fight at the scene of a large gathering of young people near Johnstown, New York, severe knife wounds in the neck and throat were sustained by the other participant. The wounds were so severe that without prompt emergency medical and surgical attention, the victim would have died. Admittedly, defendant was in possession of a knife, but it is his contention that infliction of the wounds was accidental, as the knife was open in his pocket and protruded through his trousers, cutting the victim as they scuffled on the ground. While no one actually saw the knife wounds inflicted, the description of the injury by the victim, the statements made by defendant as to his intention prior to the fight, the observation of a knife concealed in defendant’s boot, and the testimony of numerous witnesses to the actual occurrence, all present ample proof, although in large part circumstantial, to support the verdict of the jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People vBenzinger, 36 NY2d 29). The charge of the court on circumstantial evidence, to which there were no exceptions, was full and complete in all of its phases (CPL 300.10). Finally, we reject defendant’s argument that the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to refresh a witness’ recollection by referring to a prior written statement. Where, as here, there is a good faith effort to assist the witness in refreshing his recollection, there is no violation of the statute as long as the contents of the statement are not disclosed to the jury (CPL 60.35, subd 3; see People v Reed, 40 NY2d 204, 207). Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Fulton County (Best, J.), rendered May 7, 1981, which adjudicated defendant a youthful offender. While defendant and another young man were engaged in a fist fight at the scene of a large gathering of young people near Johnstown, New York, severe knife wounds in the neck and throat were sustained by the other participant. The wounds were so severe that without prompt emergency medical and surgical attention, the victim would have died. Admittedly, defendant was in possession of a knife, but it is his contention that infliction of the wounds was accidental, as the knife was open in his pocket and protruded through his trousers, cutting the victim as they scuffled on the ground. While no one actually saw the knife wounds inflicted, the description of the injury by the victim, the statements made by defendant as to his intention prior to the fight, the observation of a knife concealed in defendant’s boot, and the testimony of numerous witnesses to the actual occurrence, all present ample proof, although in large part circumstantial, to support the verdict of the jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People vBenzinger, 36 NY2d 29). The charge of the court on circumstantial evidence, to which there were no exceptions, was full and complete in all of its phases (CPL 300.10). Finally, we reject defendant’s argument that the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to refresh a witness’ recollection by referring to a prior written statement. Where, as here, there is a good faith effort to assist the witness in refreshing his recollection, there is no violation of the statute as long as the contents of the statement are not disclosed to the jury (CPL 60.35, subd 3; see People v Reed, 40 NY2d 204, 207). Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 730, 451 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-john-f-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack