From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Colon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 3, 2002
294 A.D.2d 931 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

KA 01-00048

May 3, 2002.

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Mark, J.), entered November 28, 2000, convicting defendant after a jury trial of assault in the third degree.

EDWARD J. NOWAK, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KATHLEEN M.C. DONOUGH OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

HOWARD R. RELIN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ARTHUR G. WEINSTEIN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, HURLBUTT, BURNS, AND LAWTON, JJ.


It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in failing to charge the jury with respect to the elements of the crimes of disorderly conduct, harassment and driving while intoxicated. We disagree. Pursuant to CPL 300.10 (2), the court's charge must set forth, inter alia, "the material legal principles applicable to the particular case," and those crimes were not applicable to the charges against defendant. The court also properly denied defendant's request for a missing witness charge. The People established that the witness's testimony would have been cumulative to other evidence ( see People v. Keen, 94 N.Y.2d 533, 539).


Summaries of

People v. Colon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 3, 2002
294 A.D.2d 931 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Colon

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOSE COLON…

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

Date published: May 3, 2002

Citations

294 A.D.2d 931 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
741 N.Y.S.2d 776

Citing Cases

People v. Sweney

Contrary to the People's contention, defendant's request was timely ( see People v Williams, 286 AD2d 918,…