People v. Wynn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wynn

198 A.D.2d 136, 603 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10811

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 136 (People v. Wynn) 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. Wynn, 198 A.D.2d 136, 603 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10811 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered October 23, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree and sentencing him to a term of 7 to 21 years, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference, we find the evidence sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of first degree manslaughter in the shooting death of his girlfriend’s stepfather (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620).

Moreover, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of that evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490).

Defendant’s contention that the People failed to disprove codefendant’s justification defense is without merit (see, People v Lee, 185 AD2d 824).

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s failure to charge the jury that his guilt had to be established beyond a moral certainty is not preserved for appellate review, and we decline to review in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find such a charge unwarranted since both direct and circumstantial evidence were presented to establish defendant’s culpability (People v Cave, 191 AD2d 704). Further, contrary to defendant’s contention, the jury was properly charged on accomplice liability (see, People v Jordan, 187 AD2d 731, lv denied 81 NY2d 842). Similarly, defendant’s [137]*137contentions concerning the court’s justification charge and jury verdict sheet are without merit (see, People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104; People v Sotomayer, 79 NY2d 1029).

Finally, the court’s imposition of a prison term, as opposed to Youthful Offender treatment (CPL art 720), was neither an abuse of discretion, nor excessive under the circumstances here present. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered October 23, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree and sentencing him to a term of 7 to 21 years, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference, we find the evidence sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of first degree manslaughter in the shooting death of his girlfriend’s stepfather (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620).

Moreover, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of that evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490).

Defendant’s contention that the People failed to disprove codefendant’s justification defense is without merit (see, People v Lee, 185 AD2d 824).

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s failure to charge the jury that his guilt had to be established beyond a moral certainty is not preserved for appellate review, and we decline to review in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find such a charge unwarranted since both direct and circumstantial evidence were presented to establish defendant’s culpability (People v Cave, 191 AD2d 704). Further, contrary to defendant’s contention, the jury was properly charged on accomplice liability (see, People v Jordan, 187 AD2d 731, lv denied 81 NY2d 842). Similarly, defendant’s [137]*137contentions concerning the court’s justification charge and jury verdict sheet are without merit (see, People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104; People v Sotomayer, 79 NY2d 1029).

Finally, the court’s imposition of a prison term, as opposed to Youthful Offender treatment (CPL art 720), was neither an abuse of discretion, nor excessive under the circumstances here present. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 136, 603 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wynn-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack