People v. Black

• Citation: 18 A.D.2d 719,236 N.Y.S.2d 240
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Reuben W. BLACK, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 26 December 1962
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 240

236 N.Y.S.2d 240

18 A.D.2d 719

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Reuben W. BLACK, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Dec. 26, 1962.

Joseph P. Fallon, Mineola, for appellant.

William Cahn, Dist. Atty., Mineola, Henry P. DeVine, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel, for respondent.

Before UGHETTA, Acting P. J., and KLEINFELD, HILL. RABIN and HOPKINS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered January 17, 1961 after a jury trial (as amended by order dated April 4, 1961), convicting him of the following crimes and imposing sentence upon him therefor as a second felony offender, as follows: (a) kidnapping, 20 years to life; (b) first-degree robbery, 15 to 60 years; (c) second-degree burglary, 7 1/2 to 30 years; (d) felonious possession of a gun, 3 1/2 to 7 years (e) on each of the two counts of first-degree grand larceny, 5 to 20 years; (f) on each of two counts of first-degree assault, 5 to 20 years; and (g) on each of two counts of second-degree assault, 2 1/2 to 10 years. All the terms, except those imposed for kidnapping and robbery, were directed to be served concurrently; the terms imposed for said two crimes were directed to be served consecutively.

Judgment, as amended by order of April 4, 1961, affirmed.

Defendant contends: (1) that he was deprived of a fair trial on the ground that the court's charge to the jury reviewed only the testimony adduced on direct examination but not the evidence given on cross examination; (2) that the court erred in refusing a request to charge that the testimony of an accomplice must be corroborated; (3) that the court erred in failing to distinguish in its charge between a signed and unsigned statement attributed to defendant; (4) that consecutive sentences for kidnapping and robbery were illegal; and (5) that the consecutive sentences were unduly harsh and severe.

On the proof in this record, the jury was justified in finding that defendant had entered as a burglar the home of his victims (a husband and wife) and had shot the husband in the head twice as he lay sleeping; that when the pregnant wife appared from another part of the house to investigate, defendant at point-blank range shot at her but missed; and that defendant then tore out all the telephone wires and bound the wounded man, rifled the rooms for valuables and fled in his victms' car, forcing the wife to accompany him and leaving the wounded man and an infant in a crib despite the wife's pleas that she be permitted to care for them or to make a call to a doctor to try to save her husband's life.

Defendant was apprehened in Connecticut several hours later after he had crashed the stolen car during a chase in which, with his hostage beside him, he drove at speeds up to 100 miles an hour. Despite overwhelming evidence against him, including his own statements to the police, the defendant at the trial contended that he had not shot anyone but that the wife (whose paramour he...