People v. Pawlukewicz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pawlukewicz

177 A.D.2d 932, 579 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15652

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 177 A.D.2d 932 (People v. Pawlukewicz) 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. Pawlukewicz, 177 A.D.2d 932, 579 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s arguments on appeal lack merit.

Defendant contends that there were five items that constituted material that should have been turned over before trial pursuant to Brady v Maryland (373 US 83). In our view none of those items constituted Brady material. Moreover, all five items were revealed to defendant at trial and there is no reasonable probability that, had defendant been aware of those items beforehand, the jury’s verdict would have been more favorable to defendant (see, People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67).

The court properly refused to instruct the jury on the defense of justification. No reasonable view of the evidence established that defendant believed the victim was about to use deadly physical force upon him and that such a belief was reasonable under all the circumstances (see, People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816; People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96).

Defendant’s sentence was not harsh and excessive. (Appeal [933]*933from judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.—Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present—Callahan, A. P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s arguments on appeal lack merit.

Defendant contends that there were five items that constituted material that should have been turned over before trial pursuant to Brady v Maryland (373 US 83). In our view none of those items constituted Brady material. Moreover, all five items were revealed to defendant at trial and there is no reasonable probability that, had defendant been aware of those items beforehand, the jury’s verdict would have been more favorable to defendant (see, People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67).

The court properly refused to instruct the jury on the defense of justification. No reasonable view of the evidence established that defendant believed the victim was about to use deadly physical force upon him and that such a belief was reasonable under all the circumstances (see, People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816; People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96).

Defendant’s sentence was not harsh and excessive. (Appeal [933]*933from judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.—Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present—Callahan, A. P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 932, 579 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pawlukewicz-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack