From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jarvis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 1995
215 A.D.2d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

May 15, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The defendant contends that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of uncharged crimes and of the defendant's criminal propensity. However, we find that the challenged evidence was properly admitted as directly probative of the count of endangering the welfare of a child (see, People v Keindl, 68 N.Y.2d 410).

Further, the court properly permitted the People to amend their bill of particulars (CPL 200.95). The amendment did not change the theory of the case as set forth in the indictment; it merely corrected the location of the crime (see, People v Parker, 186 A.D.2d 157). Accordingly, the amendment did not constitute a constructive amendment of the indictment (see, People v Grega, 72 N.Y.2d 489).

The court also acted within its discretion when it denied the defendant's motion to sever three counts of the indictment. The defendant failed to "make a convincing showing that he would be unduly and genuinely prejudiced by the joint trial of these cases" (see, People v Rivera, 186 A.D.2d 594, 595; People v Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1; People v Hall, 169 A.D.2d 778). Further, there is no basis in the record to support the defendant's contention that he was actually prejudiced by the court's denial of his severance motion (see, People v Hall, supra; People v Young, 167 A.D.2d 441; People v McNeil, 165 A.D.2d 882).

We also reject the defendant's contention that the jury returned inconsistent verdicts. The defendant's acquittal of sexual abuse in the third degree did not necessarily negate an essential element of the crime of endangering the welfare of a child (see, People v Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695; People v Abi-Zeid, 178 A.D.2d 604; People v Alfaro, 108 A.D.2d 517, affd 66 N.Y.2d 985).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Miller, J.P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Jarvis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 1995
215 A.D.2d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Jarvis

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GARY JARVIS, Appellant

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

Date published: May 15, 1995

Citations

215 A.D.2d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
626 N.Y.S.2d 832

Citing Cases

People v. West

County Court denied that motion. Upon our review, we perceive no error in County Court's allowing the…

People v. Lewis

The record supports the court's determination that the police did not use deception or trickery in order to…