People v. Bielewicz
| Decision Date | 17 March 1995 |
| Citation | 213 A.D.2d 966,625 N.Y.S.2d 107 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Boleslaw BIELEWICZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Michael Di Prima, Rochester, for appellant.
Thomas E. Moran, by Kathleen Valone, Avon, for respondent.
Before DENMAN, P.J., and LAWTON, WESLEY, BALIO, and BOEHM, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a judgment, following a jury trial, convicting him of rape in the first degree, rape in the third degree and four counts of sexual misconduct. County Court properly denied defendant's motion to sever certain counts of the indictment. Counts one through seven of the indictment, charging defendant with rape in the first degree, rape in the third degree and five counts of sexual misconduct, are joinable pursuant to CPL 200.20(2)(c) because the crimes charged are defined by similar statutory provisions. Where the crimes charged in the indictment are joinable because they are the same or similar in law, applications for severance are addressed to the sound discretion of the court (People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1, 8, 451 N.Y.S.2d 6, 436 N.E.2d 456).
Count eight of the indictment, charging defendant with perjury in the first degree, was properly joinable pursuant to CPL 200.20(2)(b); proof of the acts alleged in counts one through seven of the indictment would be material and admissible in the trial of count eight to establish defendant's motive to commit perjury (see, People v. Bongarzone, 69 N.Y.2d 892, 895, 515 N.Y.S.2d 227, 507 N.E.2d 1083). There was no substantial likelihood that the jury would be unable to consider separately the proof as it related to each set of offenses; indeed, defendant was acquitted of the perjury charge. We find no abuse of discretion here. We have considered the remaining contentions of defendant and conclude that they are without merit.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. O'Connor
...victim. The offenses were properly joinable because they were "the same or similar in law" (CPL 200.20[2][c]; see, People v. Bielewicz, 213 A.D.2d 966, 967, 625 N.Y.S.2d 107, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 790, 632 N.Y.S.2d 503, 656 N.E.2d 602; People v. Berta, 213 A.D.2d 659, 660, 624 N.Y.S.2d 211, ......
-
People v. De Vivo
...alleged in the burglary and criminal mischief charges would be material and admissible to establish the perjury charge (see, People v Bielewicz, 213 A.D.2d 966, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 790; People v Smith [Roger], 115 A.D.2d 304). Moreover, the proof pertaining to defendant's testimony before t......
- People v. Wiggins
-
People v. Bielewicz
...632 N.Y.S.2d 503 86 N.Y.2d 790, 656 N.E.2d 602 People v. Boleslaw Bielewicz Court of Appeals of New York Aug 30, 1995 Titone, J. 213 A.D.2d 966, 625 N.Y.S.2d 107 App.Div. 4, Livingston Denied. ...