People v. Blackwood
Decision Date | 07 February 2017 |
Citation | 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00941,147 A.D.3d 462,46 N.Y.S.3d 413 (Mem) |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Evon BLACKWOOD, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Rachel T. Goldberg of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Matthew B. White of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Benitez, J.), rendered December 12, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of eight years, unanimously reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the matter remanded for a new trial.
As in People v. Velez, 131 A.D.3d 129, 13 N.Y.S.3d 354 (1st Dept.2015), the court's charge did not convey to the jury that an acquittal on the top count of attempted murder based on a finding of justification would preclude consideration of the other charges. We find that the error was not harmless, and that it warrants reversal in the interest of justice (see e.g. People v. Flores, 145 A.D.3d 568, 41 N.Y.S.3d 890 [1st Dept.2016] ; People v. Delin, 145 A.D.3d 566, 43 N.Y.S.3d 47 [1st Dept.2016] ).
In light of this determination, we find it unnecessary to reach any other issues.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mariduena v. Pilalo
...damages for her thoracic spine, left shoulder, and left hand, even though they do not satisfy the serious injury threshold (Bonilla, 147 A.D.3d at 462, citing Rubin., 71 A.D.3d at 549-550).Page 4 "90/180-day" injury and permanency With respect to Raul's "90/180-day" injury claim, Defendants......
-
People v. Kareem
...charges. We find that this error was not harmless and warrants reversal in the interest of justice (see e.g. People v. Blackwood, 147 A.D.3d 462, 46 N.Y.S.3d 413 [1st Dept.2017] ; People v. Flores, 145 A.D.3d 568, 41 N.Y.S.3d 890 [1st Dept.2016] ). 48 N.Y.S.3d 898We have considered and reje......
- Genger v. Genger