From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bharath

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 10, 2015
134 A.D.3d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

12-10-2015

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael BHARATH, Defendant–Appellant.

Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Adrienne M. Gantt of counsel), for appellant. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Karen Swiger of counsel), for respondent.


Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Adrienne M. Gantt of counsel), for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Karen Swiger of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Sackett, J.), rendered March 21, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 ½ to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's argument that the verdicts acquitting him of assault and attempted assault but convicting him of third-degree weapon possession were repugnant is unpreserved (see People v. Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985, 499 N.Y.S.2d 378, 489 N.E.2d 1280 [1985] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. Where, as here, “there is a possible theory under which a split verdict could be legally permissible, it cannot be repugnant, regardless of whether that theory has evidentiary support in a particular case” (People v. Muhammad, 17 N.Y.3d 532, 540, 935 N.Y.S.2d 526, 959 N.E.2d 463 [2011] ). Even if the split verdict lacks an evidentiary basis, “factual repugnancy—which can be attributed to mistake, confusion, compromise or mercy—does not provide a reviewing court with the power to overturn a verdict” (id. at 545, 935 N.Y.S.2d 526, 959 N.E.2d 463). There is no merit to defendant's suggestion that we disregard Court of Appeals precedent and apply the evidentiary test advocated by the dissenters in Muhammad.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Bharath

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 10, 2015
134 A.D.3d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Bharath

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael BHARATH…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 10, 2015

Citations

134 A.D.3d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 9168
19 N.Y.S.3d 892

Citing Cases

People v. Santos

As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits, since the jury could have acquitted defendant of the…

People v. Santiago

"A verdict is repugnant only if it is legally impossible - under all conceivable circumstances - for the jury…