From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dickerson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 7, 1991
171 A.D.2d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

March 7, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Solomon Katz, J.).


Any error with respect to the admission into evidence of defendant's post arrest silence was unpreserved and we decline to reach it. Were we to reach it however, we would find it harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. (People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v Santiago, 160 A.D.2d 639.) Several eyewitnesses testified that defendant had been in a fight with the victim at a party, and that defendant told him that he wanted to go downstairs to finish it. Shortly thereafter, defendant caught up to the victim on the street, and in the presence of another witness, renewed the argument, pulled out a gun and said, "I shoot you motherf____." When the victim responded, "Kill me, motherf____", defendant shot the victim in the abdomen with his .38 caliber weapon. The medical evidence revealed that the victim eventually died of internal injuries as a result of the shooting some 12 days later. Moreover, all the witnesses testified that defendant was not provoked by the victim.

Although defendant argued that the medical procedures performed on the victim were done negligently, at trial he made no showing of the gross negligence that is required to establish the existence of a superceding intervening act between the shooting and the death. (See, People v Eulo, 63 N.Y.2d 341; People v Stewart, 40 N.Y.2d 692.) Accordingly, the Court properly refused to charge assault in the first degree as a lesser included offense of murder in the second degree, as there was no reasonable view of the evidence which would support a finding of guilt on the lesser included offense of assault, but not murder. (See, People v Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61; People v Nieves, 136 A.D.2d 250. )

Defendant's claim that the six instructions given to the jury directing them not to speculate as to defendant's street name unfairly emphasized its exclusion from trial, was not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law. Were we to consider it in the interest of justice, we would nonetheless affirm, finding it to be without merit.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Ross and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Dickerson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 7, 1991
171 A.D.2d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Dickerson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHARLES DICKERSON…

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

Date published: Mar 7, 1991

Citations

171 A.D.2d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
567 N.Y.S.2d 2

Citing Cases

People v. Ruiz

As they exited their vehicle, the officers saw defendant standing over the screaming complainant, between her…