People v. Marks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marks

116 A.D.2d 977, 498 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51749

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 24, 1986·Published

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever defendant’s trial from that of his codefendant. Defendant’s motion was untimely (CPL 255.20, 200.40 [1]) and his showing insufficient. Upon review of the record, we find that there was no impairment of substantial rights unseen before trial (see, People v Fisher, 249 NY 419, 427). The alleged errors in jury instructions were not preserved and we do not find that defendant was deprived of a fair trial (see, [978]*978CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; People v Robinson, 36 NY2d 224, 228, rearg denied 37 NY2d 786; People v Fragale, 60 AD2d 972). There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that defendant, with intent to kill, shot the victim at least once, causing a wound which contributed to his death (see, People v Cicchetti, 44 NY2d 803, 804-805). Defendant’s sentence was not harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Stiller, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, O’Donnell, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever defendant’s trial from that of his codefendant. Defendant’s motion was untimely (CPL 255.20, 200.40 [1]) and his showing insufficient. Upon review of the record, we find that there was no impairment of substantial rights unseen before trial (see, People v Fisher, 249 NY 419, 427). The alleged errors in jury instructions were not preserved and we do not find that defendant was deprived of a fair trial (see, [978]*978CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; People v Robinson, 36 NY2d 224, 228, rearg denied 37 NY2d 786; People v Fragale, 60 AD2d 972). There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that defendant, with intent to kill, shot the victim at least once, causing a wound which contributed to his death (see, People v Cicchetti, 44 NY2d 803, 804-805). Defendant’s sentence was not harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Stiller, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, O’Donnell, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

People v. Marks, 116 A.D.2d 977, 498 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

116 A.D.2d 977 (People v. Marks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related