From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Haymes

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 28, 1974
34 N.Y.2d 639 (N.Y. 1974)

Summary

In People v Haymes (34 N.Y.2d 639, cert den 419 U.S. 1003), the trial record was reviewed to determine "that the jury did not understand" a portion of the charge (34 N.Y.2d, at p 640).

Summary of this case from People v. Tucker

Opinion

Argued February 11, 1974

Decided March 28, 1974

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, WILLIAM G. HEFFRON, J.

Charles J. Scibetta and Nathaniel A. Barrell for appellant.

Michael F. Dillon, District Attorney ( Judith Blake Manzella of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

We have examined the entire record of this case in a practical frame, particularly those portions showing that at the time the jury returned its first verdict, acquitting on the weapons charge and finding defendant guilty of manslaughter, it misunderstood the possession element of the weapons charge and disagreed over the intent to kill element of the manslaughter charge. The weapons charge was foreclosed from reconsideration by the acquittal, but since at least some of the jurors had mistaken the law on intent, the Trial Judge properly sent the jury back to reconsider its verdict of guilty of manslaughter, pursuant to the then effective section 447 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After reconsideration, the jury again returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter.

We could find the jury's verdicts reversibly inconsistent, or "repugnant", only in a logical vacuum, for the record is utterly devoid of any indication that the jury's acquittal on the weapons charge, an essential element of which was intent to use unlawfully, represents a finding of lack of intent to use the gun unlawfully at the time of the shootings. The record clearly shows that the jury did not understand the continuing nature of the possession element and grounded its acquittal on its finding that at the time defendant acquired the gun he did not intend to use it unlawfully. As a consequence, the issue of intent to kill necessary to the finding of guilty of manslaughter was not resolved in defendant's favor by the weapons acquittal. The verdicts are rationally reconcilable on this record and may stand together.

We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them without merit.

Concur: Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, RABIN and STEVENS.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Haymes

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 28, 1974
34 N.Y.2d 639 (N.Y. 1974)

In People v Haymes (34 N.Y.2d 639, cert den 419 U.S. 1003), the trial record was reviewed to determine "that the jury did not understand" a portion of the charge (34 N.Y.2d, at p 640).

Summary of this case from People v. Tucker

In People v Haymes (34 N.Y.2d 639, cert den 419 U.S. 1003), however, the Court of Appeals seems to have gone even further in accepting an "understandable" jury mistake as to the theory upon which affirmance could be supported.

Summary of this case from People v. Dercole

In People v Haymes (34 N.Y.2d 639) (a case notably similar to the case at bar, particularly in light of defense counsel's request for a lesser included charge of manslaughter in the first degree), the defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, but acquitted of possession of a weapon with intent to use unlawfully.

Summary of this case from People v. Ryan
Case details for

People v. Haymes

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RODNEY HAYMES…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 28, 1974

Citations

34 N.Y.2d 639 (N.Y. 1974)
355 N.Y.S.2d 376
311 N.E.2d 509

Citing Cases

People v. Tucker

In enunciating this rule, the court is not making any departure from its prior practice. In People v Haymes (…

People v. Salemmo

In our case the acquittal is total. As to the dissent of my distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice KUPFERMAN,…