People v. Woodall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Woodall

289 A.D.2d 1008, 735 N.Y.S.2d 306, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12603

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 1008 (People v. Woodall) 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. Woodall, 289 A.D.2d 1008, 735 N.Y.S.2d 306, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.15 [1]). Supreme Court abused its discretion in admitting evidence defendant had planned to surgically remove his own testicles on the day of the homicide. Arguably, that evidence was marginally relevant to the state of mind of defendant and thus to the issue whether he acted recklessly (see, People v Leonardo, 89 AD2d 214, 218, affd 60 NY2d 683). The danger of undue prejudice to defendant, however, “far outweighed the minimal legitimate advantage which would accrue to the prosecution from disclosure to the jury” of his plan to remove his testicles (People v Ward, 62 NY2d 816, 818; see generally, People v Scarola, 71 NY2d 769, 777; People v Davis, 43 NY2d 17, 27, cert denied 435 US 998, rearg dismissed 61 NY2d 670). We conclude, however, that the error is harmless. The evidence of guilt is overwhelming and there is no significant probability that defendant would have been acquitted but for the error (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242; People v Santiago, 255 AD2d 63, 66, lv denied 94 NY2d 829). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Ark, J. — Manslaughter, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.15 [1]). Supreme Court abused its discretion in admitting evidence defendant had planned to surgically remove his own testicles on the day of the homicide. Arguably, that evidence was marginally relevant to the state of mind of defendant and thus to the issue whether he acted recklessly (see, People v Leonardo, 89 AD2d 214, 218, affd 60 NY2d 683). The danger of undue prejudice to defendant, however, “far outweighed the minimal legitimate advantage which would accrue to the prosecution from disclosure to the jury” of his plan to remove his testicles (People v Ward, 62 NY2d 816, 818; see generally, People v Scarola, 71 NY2d 769, 777; People v Davis, 43 NY2d 17, 27, cert denied 435 US 998, rearg dismissed 61 NY2d 670). We conclude, however, that the error is harmless. The evidence of guilt is overwhelming and there is no significant probability that defendant would have been acquitted but for the error (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242; People v Santiago, 255 AD2d 63, 66, lv denied 94 NY2d 829). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Ark, J. — Manslaughter, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 1008, 735 N.Y.S.2d 306, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-woodall-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack