From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Incherchera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1977
56 A.D.2d 852 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Opinion

March 7, 1977


Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 15, 1974, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant was indicted for assault in the first degree. The Trial Judge submitted to the jury the crimes of assault in the first degree (Penal Law, § 120.10, subds 1, 3), assault in the second degree (Penal Law, § 120.05, subds 1, 2, 4) and assault in the third degree (Penal Law, § 120.00, subds 1, 2, 3). The jury returned a verdict of guilty of assault in the second degree, but did not specify which subdivision of section 120.05 Penal of the Penal Law served as the basis of its verdict. Defendant asserts that a new trial should be ordered, or a conviction of assault in the third degree entered, because it is possible that he was convicted solely under subdivision 1 of section 120.05 Penal of the Penal Law, and that an essential element of that subdivision, the intent to cause serious physical injury, was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. It is clear from the record that the injuries were inflicted by means of a dangerous instrument, a knife. Therefore, on the facts of this case, a verdict of not guilty of assault in the first degree (Penal Law, § 120.10, subd 1), precludes a finding of guilty of violation of subdivision 1 of section 120.05 Penal of the Penal Law. The record establishes that defendant was convicted either under subdivision 2 or subdivision 4 of section 120.05 Penal of the Penal Law and that the evidence was sufficient to warrant a verdict based on either of those subdivisions. In any event, defendant agreed to a charge that a verdict of guilty of assault, in the first, second or third degrees, was proper and did not object to the verdict at the time it was announced and could have been clarified. Under the circumstances, the failure to object does not preserve the issue as a question of law for appellate review (see Matter of Oliver v Justices of N Y Supreme Ct. of N.Y. County, 36 N.Y.2d 53; People v Quilles, 48 A.D.2d 933). Hopkins, Acting P.J., Latham, Damiani and Hawkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Incherchera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1977
56 A.D.2d 852 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)
Case details for

People v. Incherchera

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANGELO INCHERCHERA…

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

Date published: Mar 7, 1977

Citations

56 A.D.2d 852 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Citing Cases

People v. Bruckman

Inasmuch as defendant failed to object to the verdict as returned by the jury, his claim of repugnancy was…