People v. Pew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pew

237 A.D.2d 930, 656 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3524

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 14, 1997·Published

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]), defendant contends that the evidence is legally [931] insufficient to establish that he acted with the intent to cause serious physical injury and that his conduct caused the death of the victim. We disagree. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), is sufficient to establish that defendant intended to cause serious physical injury and that his conduct set in motion the events that ultimately resulted in the victim’s death (see, People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 681-683; People v Kibbe, 35 NY2d 407; People v Novak, 179 AD2d 1053, lv denied 79 NY2d 922).

We further conclude that the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant did not violate defendant’s attorney-client privilege or deprive defendant of his right to a fair trial. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.— Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Law-ton, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]), defendant contends that the evidence is legally [931] insufficient to establish that he acted with the intent to cause serious physical injury and that his conduct caused the death of the victim. We disagree. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), is sufficient to establish that defendant intended to cause serious physical injury and that his conduct set in motion the events that ultimately resulted in the victim’s death (see, People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 681-683; People v Kibbe, 35 NY2d 407; People v Novak, 179 AD2d 1053, lv denied 79 NY2d 922).

We further conclude that the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant did not violate defendant’s attorney-client privilege or deprive defendant of his right to a fair trial. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.— Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Law-ton, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

People v. Pew, 237 A.D.2d 930, 656 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3524 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

237 A.D.2d 930 (People v. Pew) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related