People v. Bray
| Decision Date | 27 December 2007 |
| Docket Number | 101130. |
| Citation | 46 A.D.3d 1232,2007 NY Slip Op 10418,848 N.Y.S.2d 738 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DENNIS F. BRAY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lawliss, J.), rendered March 19, 2007 in Clinton County, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of three counts of the crime of endangering the welfare of a child.
Defendant and his estranged wife, Allyson Bray, engaged in an incident of domestic violence in the presence of their three children, the eldest of whom was nine years of age. As a result, four misdemeanor complaints were issued against defendant. The first charged him with attempted assault in the third degree, the pertinent language being that The other three misdemeanor complaints charge defendant with endangering the welfare of a child and each is identical with the exception of the name of the child. The relevant language of each is that
Following a nonjury trial, defendant was found not guilty of the attempted assault charge, but guilty of endangering the welfare of each of his three children. Defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 was denied without explanation. Sentenced, among other things, to three years of probation, defendant appeals, arguing that the People were impermissibly allowed to amend the criminal informations during trial, Supreme Court issued a repugnant verdict, and the evidence is legally insufficient to support the guilty verdicts. We disagree and affirm.
Defendant's first argument is that Supreme Court impermissibly permitted the prosecutor, in her closing statement, to "in effect" amend the criminal informations charging him with endangering the welfare of his children. This argument, in turn, is premised on his observation that since the court found him not guilty of the attempted assault of "head butting" his wife and because the endangering the welfare of the children complaints were premised on the same "head butting" incident, his convictions must necessarily rest on uncharged criminal conduct. The flaw in this argument is that it too narrowly focuses on the complaints and ignores the supporting depositions. Pursuant to the provisions of CPL 170.65, a misdemeanor complaint does not support a prosecution. However, if a misdemeanor complaint supplemented by supporting depositions, taken together, satisfy the requirements for a valid information, the complaint is deemed to have been converted to and constitutes a replacing information. Attached to the complaints were domestic incident reports signed by Bray and a statement that she made to the police which, when read with the complaint, alleged that defendant started a confrontation at the residence which escalated from a verbal dispute to a physical dispute in the presence of the children, and defendant refused to leave the premises and blocked the way so that the victim's sister could not leave with the children. Simply put, defendant was charged with conduct in addition to the head butting incident, and the prosecution's reference to such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mutterperl
...111, 505 N.E.2d 621), and endangering the welfare of a child ( see People v. Smith, 69 A.D.3d 657, 891 N.Y.S.2d 294;People v. Bray, 46 A.D.3d 1232, 1234, 848 N.Y.S.2d 738). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470......
-
People v. Davis
...N.Y.3d 1200, 986 N.Y.S.2d 420, 9 N.E.3d 915 [2014] ; People v. Bell, 80 A.D.3d 891, 891, 914 N.Y.S.2d 422 [2011] ; People v. Bray, 46 A.D.3d 1232, 1234, 848 N.Y.S.2d 738 [2007] ).Finally, to the extent that defendant takes issue with the scope of the missing witness charge given by County C......
-
People v. Powell
...at 371–372, 718 N.Y.S.2d 1, 740 N.E.2d 1075 [2000] ; People v. Bell, 80 A.D.3d 891, 891, 914 N.Y.S.2d 422 [2011] ; People v. Bray, 46 A.D.3d 1232, 1234, 848 N.Y.S.2d 738 [2007] ). Further, as defendant entered and remained in the victim's apartment without permission on both days described ......
-
People v. Cohens
...neither inconsistent nor repugnant ( see People v. Rayam, 94 N.Y.2d 557, 561-563, 708 N.Y.S.2d 37, 729 N.E.2d 694; People v. Bray, 46 A.D.3d 1232, 1234, 848 N.Y.S.2d 738). We reject defendant's contention that his use of the weaponwas justified under Penal Law § 35.20(2) and thus that the e......