Matter of Equcon M.
| Decision Date | 26 February 2002 |
| Citation | 737 N.Y.S.2d 622,291 A.D.2d 332 |
| Parties | In the Matter of EQUCON M., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appellant was properly tried in Supreme Court because he was charged with a combination of crimes for which he could have been criminally responsible despite his age (see, Penal Law § 30.00 [2]), and other crimes to which the defense of infancy applied (Green v Montgomery, 95 NY2d 693, 698; CPL 200.20 [6]). Following the jury's verdict convicting appellant of felony murder, a crime for which he could not have been criminally responsible since the underlying crime was for attempted first-degree robbery and appellant was not 16 years old at the time of the crime, Supreme Court properly transferred the case to Family Court for disposition (id.; CPL 310.85 [3]).
The jury verdict, which served as the fact-finding determination underlying Family Court's order of disposition, was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility were properly considered by the finder of fact and there is no basis upon which to disturb those determinations. The underlying felony was clearly established by credible testimony from a witness who overheard appellant's admission that the murder occurred in the course of an attempted robbery.
Appellant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of Travis Y.
...within the adult criminal justice system” ( Matter of Vega v. Bell at 547, 419 N.Y.S.2d 454, 393 N.E.2d 450; see, Matter of Equcon M., 291 A.D.2d 332, 737 N.Y.S.2d 622 [2002] ). In creating the status of “juvenile offender” (Penal Law § 10.00 [18]; Criminal Procedure Law § 1.20[42] ), the L......
-
In re Kaminski G.
...and are prosecuted within the adult criminal justice system" ( Vega at 547, 419 N.Y.S.2d 454, 393 N.E.2d 450; see, Matter of Equcon M., 291 A.D.2d 332, 737 N.Y.S.2d 622; United States v. Smith, 376 Fed.Appx. 140, 142-143 [2d Cir., 2010] ). The 1978 legislation deprived certain offenders of ......
- Gonzalez v. ELRAC, INC.