People v. Mayorquin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mayorquin

30 A.D.3d 317, 819 N.Y.S.2d 225

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

DecidedJune 27, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 317 (People v. Mayorquin) 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. Mayorquin, 30 A.D.3d 317, 819 N.Y.S.2d 225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered November 23, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s request for a justification charge since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to defendant, that would support such a charge (see People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299, 301-302 [1982]). The evidence established that defendant stabbed the victim more than 20 times while the victim was lying on the ground and being beaten by others. Additionally, defendant and his companions could have retreated from the scene in complete safety. Defendant posits various scenarios supporting the justification defense, all of which rest on speculation (see People v Hubrecht, 2 AD3d 289, 290 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 741 [2004]). There was no evidence that defendant’s actions against the victim were in defense of defendant’s cousin.

Regardless of whether it was the prosecutor, defense counsel, or the court who was responsible for the inadvertent elicitation of a redacted portion of a medical record, we find the error, if any, to be harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). The redacted phrase added nothing to the Feople’s proof, and was consistent with defendant’s theory of the case. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered November 23, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s request for a justification charge since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to defendant, that would support such a charge (see People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299, 301-302 [1982]). The evidence established that defendant stabbed the victim more than 20 times while the victim was lying on the ground and being beaten by others. Additionally, defendant and his companions could have retreated from the scene in complete safety. Defendant posits various scenarios supporting the justification defense, all of which rest on speculation (see People v Hubrecht, 2 AD3d 289, 290 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 741 [2004]). There was no evidence that defendant’s actions against the victim were in defense of defendant’s cousin.

Regardless of whether it was the prosecutor, defense counsel, or the court who was responsible for the inadvertent elicitation of a redacted portion of a medical record, we find the error, if any, to be harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). The redacted phrase added nothing to the Feople’s proof, and was consistent with defendant’s theory of the case. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 317, 819 N.Y.S.2d 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mayorquin-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack