People v. Almanzar
| Decision Date | 09 December 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2005-11314.,2005-11313. |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LUIS ALMANZAR, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment rendered under indictment No. 2790-02 is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment rendered under indictment No. 1333-04 is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new trial on that indictment.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the affirmative defense to bail jumping under Penal Law § 215.59. We agree. As a general matter, "a court must charge the jury on any claimed defense that is supported by a reasonable view of the evidence which the court must assess in the light most favorable to the defendant" (People v Taylor, 80 NY2d 1, 12 [1992]). The defendant bears the burden at trial of establishing the affirmative defense to bail jumping by a preponderance of the evidence (see Penal Law § 25.00 [2]). Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Taylor, 80 NY2d at 12), a reasonable view of the evidence supported issuing the charge on the affirmative defense to bail jumping (see Penal Law § 215.59), and the court should have included the charge in its instructions to the jury. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for a new trial on the charge of bail jumping in the first degree contained in indictment No. 1333-04. The defendant also contends that this error resulted in a prejudicial spillover effect with respect to his justification defense regarding the charges contained in indictment No. 2790-02, which were tried with the charge of bail jumping contained in indictment No. 1333-04. This contention, however, is without merit and belied by the fact that the jury acquitted the defendant of two counts under indictment No. 2790-02, including the top count of assault in the first degree (cf. People v Doshi, 93 NY2d 499, 506 [1999]).
As to the remaining convictions of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, the defendant's challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence are unpreserved for appellate review, as ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Simpson
...People v. Huddleston, 101 A.D.3d 901, 954 N.Y.S.2d 914 ; People v. Morrison, 94 A.D.3d 913, 914, 941 N.Y.S.2d 521 ; People v. Almanzar, 57 A.D.3d 686, 688, 870 N.Y.S.2d 59 ). The People also adduced legally sufficient evidence that the defendant intended to inflict serious physical injury u......
-
Huertas v. Bezio
...See N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 470.05(2); People v. Logan, 74 N.Y.2d 859, 860-61, 547 N.Y.S.2d 828 (1989); People v. Almanzar, 57 A.D.3d 686, 687-88, 870 N.Y.S.2d 59 (2d Dept. 2008); People v. Alexander, 12 A.D.3d 524, 783 N.Y.S.2d 867 (2d Dept. 2004). Petitioner has offered neither cause, nor ......
-
People v. Herrera, 2014-02563, Ind. No. 13-00227.
...for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Almanzar, 57 A.D.3d 686, 870 N.Y.S.2d 59 ; People v. Nesbitt, 41 A.D.3d 866, 837 N.Y.S.2d 579 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to t......
- In the Matter of Venditti v. New York State Dept of Environmental Conservation