People v. Arkim

5 Citing cases

  1. Arkim v. Irvin

    996 F. Supp. 245 (W.D.N.Y. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    On January 31, 1992, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the judgment of conviction. People v. Arkim, 179 A.D.2d 1019, 580 N.Y.S.2d 120 (4th Dept. 1992). The court specifically ruled that the trial court properly charged the jury on petitioner's interest in the outcome, and properly marshaled the evidence necessary to explain the application of the law to the facts.

  2. People v. Twillie

    28 A.D.3d 1236 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 31 times

    Following that comment, defendant "clearly and unambiguously" expressed his desire to continue the interview without the assistance of counsel, and the court properly concluded that the right to counsel did not attach before defendant made his statement to the police ( Glover, 87 NY2d at 839; see Kuklinski, 24 AD3d at 1037; Powell, 304 AD2d at 410-411). Contrary to defendant's further contentions, the court properly charged the jury that defendant was an interested witness as a matter of law and properly refused to charge the jury that a prosecution witness was an interested witness as a matter of law ( see People v. Adams, 278 AD2d 920, 921, lv denied 96 NY2d 825; People v. Arkim, 179 AD2d 1019, lv denied 79 NY2d 997). "The court gave a balanced charge, properly instructing the jurors that they could consider the interest or bias of any witness in assessing credibility" ( Adams, 278 AD2d at 921-922). Finally, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

  3. People v. Rasmussen

    275 A.D.2d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 4 times

    Defendant's contention that the jury charge concerning interested witnesses was unbalanced and prejudicial to defendant is not preserved for our review ( see, People v. Harding, 266 A.D.2d 310, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 920). In any event, the charge on interested witnesses, which substantially conformed to 1 CJI(NY) 7.03 and 7. 04, was properly balanced ( see, People v. Bowden, 198 A.D.2d 39, 40; see also, People v. Arkim, 179 A.D.2d 1019, 1019-1020, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 997). Defendant's contention that the court erred in reinstructing the jury on attempted rape and sexual abuse is likewise unpreserved for our review and, in any event, is without merit. The court acted within its discretion in responding to a jury request that it "redefine between attempted rape [charged as a lesser-included offense under the rape in the first degree count] and sexual abuse" by rereading the charge on those offenses ( see, People v. Molling, 238 A.D.2d 915; see generally, People v. Weinberg, 83 N.Y.2d 262, 267-268; People v. Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 131-132).

  4. People v. May

    263 A.D.2d 215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 36 times
    Noting that "penetration is not an essential element of forcible sodomy"

    As to the charge of oral sodomy, defendant raises both legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence challenges. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Harper, 75 N.Y.2d 313) to determine whether "there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury * * * and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged" (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 [citations omitted]; see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that while Penal Law ยง 130.00 (2) requires "contact" between the mouth and the penis, penetration is not an essential element of forcible sodomy (see, People v. Herring, 227 A.D.2d 658, 661, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 986; People v. Arkim, 179 A.D.2d 1019, 1020,lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 997; People v. Lipinski, 159 A.D.2d 860, 861, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 860; People v. Griffin, 96 A.D.2d 720, 720; People v. Griffith, 80 A.D.2d 590, 591). Hence, we reject any contentions of error predicated upon the lack of proof of actual penetration of defendant's penis into the victim's mouth. Defendant's admissions and statements concerning a bite mark on his penis, coupled with the confirmatory testimony of the forensic odontologist, belies any claim that the verdict convicting him of such charge was against the weight of the evidence or that County Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss.

  5. People v. Olivero

    247 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    The court thereafter instructed the jury that the defendant's wife, mother, brother, and stepdaughter were interested witnesses. It is well settled that the question of whether a witness is interested is one of fact for the jury ( see, People v. Jackson, 80 A.D.2d 904; see also, People v. Arkim, 179 A.D.2d 1019; People v. Spruill, 125 A.D.2d 510; People v. Suarez, 125 A.D.2d 350; People v. Whitmore, 123 A.D.2d 336; People v. Reyes, 118 A.D.2d 666). The court's contradictory and misleading instruction, which ultimately conveyed to the jury that the testimony of four of the defendant's five witnesses should be scrutinized more carefully than that of ordinary witnesses, may not be deemed harmless error. The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.