People v. Mason

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mason

281 A.D.2d 893, 722 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2791

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 893 (People v. Mason) 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. Mason, 281 A.D.2d 893, 722 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]). Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in allowing a witness to testify to a conversation that she overheard. The witness testified that the conversation was between her neighbor and a man she believed to be defendant, but she was unable to identify defendant’s voice. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly allowed the testimony. The identity of a party to a conversation may be established by circumstantial evidence (see, People v Lynes, 49 NY2d 286, 291-292; see also, People v Shapiro, 227 AD2d 506, 507, lv denied 88 NY2d 1024). Here, the witness testified that she knows defendant, observed the car that he drives parked in front of her neighbor’s house, and, immediately after the conversation ended, observed defendant leave her neighbor’s house and drive away. Those circumstances provide sufficient “indices of reliability” (People v Lynes, supra, at 291-292) to allow the jury to determine whether defendant was the other party to the conversation.

The court properly allowed the emergency room physician to testify concerning the type of force necessary to cause the victim’s injuries because it involved a matter that is not within the ken of the average juror (see, People v Eberle, 265 AD2d 881, 882). The admissibility of expert testimony, even when it concerns an ultimate issue to be determined by the jury, is within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v Miller, 91 NY2d 372, 379; People v Cronin, 60 NY2d 430, 433). [894]*894The conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wisner, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.) Present: Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Hurlbutt and Burns, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]). Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in allowing a witness to testify to a conversation that she overheard. The witness testified that the conversation was between her neighbor and a man she believed to be defendant, but she was unable to identify defendant’s voice. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly allowed the testimony. The identity of a party to a conversation may be established by circumstantial evidence (see, People v Lynes, 49 NY2d 286, 291-292; see also, People v Shapiro, 227 AD2d 506, 507, lv denied 88 NY2d 1024). Here, the witness testified that she knows defendant, observed the car that he drives parked in front of her neighbor’s house, and, immediately after the conversation ended, observed defendant leave her neighbor’s house and drive away. Those circumstances provide sufficient “indices of reliability” (People v Lynes, supra, at 291-292) to allow the jury to determine whether defendant was the other party to the conversation.

The court properly allowed the emergency room physician to testify concerning the type of force necessary to cause the victim’s injuries because it involved a matter that is not within the ken of the average juror (see, People v Eberle, 265 AD2d 881, 882). The admissibility of expert testimony, even when it concerns an ultimate issue to be determined by the jury, is within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v Miller, 91 NY2d 372, 379; People v Cronin, 60 NY2d 430, 433). [894]*894The conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wisner, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.) Present: Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Hurlbutt and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 893, 722 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mason-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack