From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Porrata

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 14, 1986
119 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

April 14, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (McMahon, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

Although the testimony of the complainant and the defendant was in sharp conflict on the issue of forcible compulsion, the witnesses' credibility was for the jury to determine (see, People v. Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116, 122), and it cannot be said as a matter of law that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was legally insufficient (People v Walstatter, 53 N.Y.2d 871, affg 73 A.D.2d 175; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; People v. Stancu, 106 A.D.2d 592). The complainant testified that the defendant, in response to her resistance to his attack, told her that he had a knife, and that nothing would happen to her as long as she did as he wanted. She also testified that she cooperated with the defendant only because she felt it was her best chance to get away unharmed. This clearly constituted forcible compulsion under the then-applicable statutory definition (L 1977, ch 692, § 2), since the attack was accompanied by "a threat, express or implied, that place[d] a person in fear of immediate death or serious physical injury" (cf. Penal Law § 130.00 [b]).

We are not persuaded by the defendant's contention that the court committed reversible error by failing to grant his request for a supplemental charge further explaining the limited probative value of the fact of the defendant's flight from the jurisdiction. While the court's minimal instruction to the jury that such evidence of consciousness of guilt was only of slight value would have been better had it also included a brief explanation why flight could also be consistent with innocence (cf. People v. Moses, 63 N.Y.2d 299, 308; People v Yazum, 13 N.Y.2d 302, 304; People v. Limage, 57 A.D.2d 906, affd 45 N.Y.2d 845; 1 CJI [NY] 9.16 p 487), the omission does not warrant overturning the conviction as it did not result in the denial of a fair trial (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Yanik, 43 N.Y.2d 97, 100-101; People v. Kingston, 8 N.Y.2d 384, 387). Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Porrata

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 14, 1986
119 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Porrata

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CARLOS PORRATA…

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

Date published: Apr 14, 1986

Citations

119 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. Zuccaro

We find no improvident exercise of discretion with respect to the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury…

People v. Kershaw

We disagree. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People…