People v. Boute
| Decision Date | 28 May 1985 |
| Citation | 111 A.D.2d 398,489 N.Y.S.2d 605 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Raymond BOUTE and Cadette Sawyer, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William E. Hellerstein, New York City (Meira Rosenberg, New York City, of counsel), for appellant Boute.
Stuart Birbach, New York City, for appellant Sawyer.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Shulamit Rosenblum and Jack M. Frazier, Asst. Dist. Attys., Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before O'CONNOR, J.P., and BROWN, NIEHOFF and LAWRENCE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendants Cadette Sawyer and Raymond Boute from two judgments (one as to each of them) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both rendered November 16, 1982, convicting them of reckless endangerment in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.
Judgments affirmed.
The jury's conclusion that the defendants were guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) is supported by legally sufficient evidence (cf. People v. Restrepo, 93 A.D.2d 825, 460 N.Y.S.2d 620; People v. Ramirez, 79 A.D.2d 978, 434 N.Y.S.2d 281). Also, the jury's finding that the People had disproved the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt is not against the weight of the evidence. Neither defendant voiced an objection to the trial court's supposedly misleading instruction as to the applicability of the defense of justification to the crime of reckless endangerment, or the court's failure to deliver an instruction as to identification. These claims are therefore not preserved for review (CPL 470.05 People v. Richburg, 109 A.D.2d 899, 487 N.Y.S.2d 94; People v. Doctor, 98 A.D.2d 780, 469 N.Y.S.2d 797). Also, although the prosecutor did not strictly confine his remarks in summation to matters within the four corners of the evidence, the trial court's admonitions and curative instructions served to eliminate any possibility of prejudice (see People v. Cuevas, 99 A.D.2d 553, 471 N.Y.S.2d 640; People v. McCloskey, 92 A.D.2d 672, 460 N.Y.S.2d 177). Defendant's remaining contentions have been reviewed and are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Goetz
...Justification is not a defense to this charge. Cf. People v. McManus, 108 A.D.2d 474, 489 N.Y.S.2d 561; but see People v. Boute, 111 A.D.2d 398, 399, 489 N.Y.S.2d 605. C. Limited Waiver The remaining argument in support of dismissal is that the refusal to permit defendant to testify under a......
- People v. Hall
-
People v. Hicks
...was, therefore, unjustified (see, Penal Law § 35.15 cf. People v. Hanley, 112 A.D.2d 1048, 1049, 493 N.Y.S.2d 35; People v. Boute, 111 A.D.2d 398, 399, 489 N.Y.S.2d 605). The defendant further contends that the People did not prove her sanity beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law former......
-
People v. Gonzalez
...corners of the evidence, the trial court's curative instructions served to eliminate any possibility of prejudice (see, People v. Boute, 111 A.D.2d 398, 489 N.Y.S.2d 605, lv. denied 66 N.Y.2d 761, 497 N.Y.S.2d 1035, 488 N.E.2d 121). Since the adequacy of the court's curative instructions wa......