From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. DeGina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 16, 1988
140 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

May 16, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not err in refusing to permit the defendant to offer into evidence a statement made by his codefendant, as that portion of the statement which tended to exculpate the defendant was not adverse to his codefendant's penal interest (see, People v Brensic, 70 N.Y.2d 9, mot to amend remittitur granted 70 N.Y.2d 722, appeal after remand 136 A.D.2d 169; People v Thompson, 129 A.D.2d 655). The trial court also did not err in permitting the officer who arrested the defendant two months after the crimes were committed to testify that when the defendant saw him he ran and hid, as the officer's testimony tends to establish consciousness of guilt (see, People v Yazum, 13 N.Y.2d 302, rearg denied 15 N.Y.2d 679).

The trial court did err, however, when, at the People's request and over defense counsel's objection, it charged the jury with respect to the affirmative defense of entrapment, as a fair reading of the record establishes that the entrapment defense was not raised (see, People v Albright, 65 N.Y.2d 666; People v Martin, 66 A.D.2d 995). However, given the overwhelming evidence regarding the defendant's intent to commit the crimes for which he was convicted, we find that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Smalls, 55 N.Y.2d 407; People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).

The law and the circumstances of this case, viewed together and at the time of representation, reveal that the defendant was provided with meaningful representation. Thus the defendant's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated (see, People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796).

We have considered the remaining contentions raised by the defendant and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Montemurro, 125 A.D.2d 605, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 748), or without merit (see, People v Sanzo, 122 A.D.2d 817, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 1004). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. DeGina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 16, 1988
140 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

People v. DeGina

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SCOTT DeGINA, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 16, 1988

Citations

140 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

People v. Shepherd

The trial court properly admitted evidence of the defendant's flight because it was circumstantial evidence…

People v. Carradero

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not…