People v. Kimbrough

155 A.D.2d 935, 547 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14793
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 15, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 155 A.D.2d 935 (People v. Kimbrough) 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. Kimbrough, 155 A.D.2d 935, 547 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In our view, the felony murder and robbery counts of the indictment charged defendant pursuant to Penal Law § 20.00 with accessorial liability for the conduct of the other participant in the crimes. Therefore, the court, in its instructions to the jury, did not constructively amend the indictment (see, People v Grega, 72 NY2d 489; People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74). Moreover, the fact that an indictment accuses a defendant as a principal does not preclude his conviction as an accessory and a charge based on accessorial conduct is not grounds for reversal (see, People v Grega, 72 NY2d 489, supra; People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74, supra, rearg denied 46 NY2d 940, cert denied 442 US 910, rearg dismissed 56 NY2d 646).

Defendant did not object to the court’s failure to charge the jury on accomplice testimony as it had agreed to do; therefore, the issue has not been preserved for our review (see, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 280; People v Lipton, 54 NY2d 340, 351). In any event, in light of the overwhelming corroborating proof of defendant’s guilt, the failure to charge the accomplice rule is harmless error (see, People v Mayo, 136 AD2d 748, lv denied 71 NY2d 971; People v Pyne, 125 AD2d 720).

We have reviewed the remaining contentions raised by defendant, including those asserted in defendant’s supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for our review or, where preserved, lacking "in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Dillon, J. — murder, second degree; robbery, first degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

BOX, BRANDON W., PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
SAGE, MERLIN G., PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
People v. McIntyre
277 A.D.2d 1000 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Mercado v. Stinson
37 F. Supp. 2d 267 (S.D. New York, 1999)
People v. Gigante
212 A.D.2d 1049 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Woods
208 A.D.2d 874 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Spataro
202 A.D.2d 1005 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Hobbs
185 A.D.2d 619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Bell
162 A.D.2d 979 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 A.D.2d 935, 547 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kimbrough-nyappdiv-1989.