People v. McKinley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McKinley

169 A.D.2d 735

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 735 (People v. McKinley) 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. McKinley, 169 A.D.2d 735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), rendered October 18, 1988, convicting him of assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Evidence was adduced at the trial that the defendant struck a pedestrian with his automobile after proceeding at a high rate of speed through an intersection against a traffic signal. The defendant testified that he had been without sleep for a prolonged period of time and that he was aware that this condition could affect a person’s ability to operate a vehicle. The contentions raised by the defendant on appeal do not warrant a reversal of his conviction, as the proof of his guilt was overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that [736]*736the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the alleged errors (see, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People u Salcedo, 155 AD2d 699). Mangano, P. J., Eiber, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), rendered October 18, 1988, convicting him of assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Evidence was adduced at the trial that the defendant struck a pedestrian with his automobile after proceeding at a high rate of speed through an intersection against a traffic signal. The defendant testified that he had been without sleep for a prolonged period of time and that he was aware that this condition could affect a person’s ability to operate a vehicle. The contentions raised by the defendant on appeal do not warrant a reversal of his conviction, as the proof of his guilt was overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that [736]*736the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the alleged errors (see, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People u Salcedo, 155 AD2d 699). Mangano, P. J., Eiber, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mckinley-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack