People v. McIlwain

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McIlwain

259 A.D.2d 1046, 688 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3486

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 1046 (People v. McIlwain) 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. McIlwain, 259 A.D.2d 1046, 688 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and mat[1047]*1047ter remitted to Erie County Court for sentencing in accordance with the following Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in denying his objection, pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79), to the prosecutor’s peremptory challenge of a black prospective juror. The prosecutor proffered a race-neutral explanation for the challenge, and “the trial court was in the best position to observe the prosecutor’s demeanor and determine whether his explanations were credible or merely pretexts for racial discrimination” (People v Adams, 247 AD2d 625, lv denied 92 NY2d 847, citing People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431, 434, lv denied 85 NY2d 911). The court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination of the robbery victim with respect to matters contained in his school records (see, People v Tyes, 175 AD2d 624, lv denied 79 NY2d 865). Defendant presented no proof to support a charge on the affirmative defense set forth in Penal Law § 160.15 (4), and thus the court properly denied his request to charge that affirmative defense (see, People v Cotarelo, 71 NY2d 941, 942-943; People v Smith [James], 220 AD2d 547). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

The judgment must be modified, however, because the People presented no proof that the shotgun used in the robbery was loaded or operable. As a result, the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [2]) under the first count of the indictment (see, People v Shaffer, 66 NY2d 663, 664; People v Wilson, 252 AD2d 241; People v Fwilo, ATI AD2d 727) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01 [2]) under the fourth count (see, People v Fwilo, supra). We therefore modify the judgment by reducing the conviction of robbery in the first degree under the first count to robbery in the third degree and by vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and we remit the matter to Erie County Court for sentencing on that count (see, CPL 470.20 [4]). We further modify the judgment by reversing the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree under the fourth count, vacating the sentence imposed thereon and dismissing that count. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, DiTullio, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and mat[1047]*1047ter remitted to Erie County Court for sentencing in accordance with the following Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in denying his objection, pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79), to the prosecutor’s peremptory challenge of a black prospective juror. The prosecutor proffered a race-neutral explanation for the challenge, and “the trial court was in the best position to observe the prosecutor’s demeanor and determine whether his explanations were credible or merely pretexts for racial discrimination” (People v Adams, 247 AD2d 625, lv denied 92 NY2d 847, citing People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431, 434, lv denied 85 NY2d 911). The court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination of the robbery victim with respect to matters contained in his school records (see, People v Tyes, 175 AD2d 624, lv denied 79 NY2d 865). Defendant presented no proof to support a charge on the affirmative defense set forth in Penal Law § 160.15 (4), and thus the court properly denied his request to charge that affirmative defense (see, People v Cotarelo, 71 NY2d 941, 942-943; People v Smith [James], 220 AD2d 547). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

The judgment must be modified, however, because the People presented no proof that the shotgun used in the robbery was loaded or operable. As a result, the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [2]) under the first count of the indictment (see, People v Shaffer, 66 NY2d 663, 664; People v Wilson, 252 AD2d 241; People v Fwilo, ATI AD2d 727) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01 [2]) under the fourth count (see, People v Fwilo, supra). We therefore modify the judgment by reducing the conviction of robbery in the first degree under the first count to robbery in the third degree and by vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and we remit the matter to Erie County Court for sentencing on that count (see, CPL 470.20 [4]). We further modify the judgment by reversing the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree under the fourth count, vacating the sentence imposed thereon and dismissing that count. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, DiTullio, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 1046, 688 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcilwain-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack