People v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 28 December 2010 |
| Citation | 913 N.Y.S.2d 220,79 A.D.3d 624 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raheem CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
79 A.D.3d 624
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Raheem CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec. 28, 2010.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jonathan M. Kirshbaum of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Deborah L. Morse of counsel), for respondent.
GONZALEZ, P.J., MAZZARELLI, SWEENY, RICHTER, MANZANET-DANIELS, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered January 5, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted gang assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 4 years and 3 years, respectively, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the conviction for second-degree assault to third-degree assault and reducing the sentence on that conviction only to time served, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict convicting defendant of attempted gang assault in the first degree was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. The evidence showed that defendant and three other men repeatedly punched and kicked the victim as he lay on the ground.
However, the evidence did not establish defendant's guilt of second-degree assault based on the use of a dangerous instrument, charged under an acting-in-concert theory. There was no claim that defendant personally used a knife, and there was no evidence even to suggest that defendant
was aware that one of the other attackers used a knife. The use of the knife was not open and obvious.We reach defendant's unpreserved sufficiency claim in the interest of justice, and reduce the conviction to third-degree assault. In view of that determination, we find it unnecessary to reach defendant's other claim relating to the second-degree assault conviction.
Defendant failed to preserve his arguments regarding the prosecutor's summation, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal, since the court's charge was sufficient to prevent the challenged remarks from causing any prejudice. We have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tapia
... ... Campbell, 79 A.D.3d 624, 913 N.Y.S.2d 220 [1st Dept.2010], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 793, 929 N.Y.S.2d 101, 952 N.E.2d 1096 [2011] ; Matter of Paris M., 218 A.D.2d at 556, 630 N.Y.S.2d 732 ; People v. Rivera, 176 A.D.2d at 510512, 575 N.Y.S.2d 7 ).However, defendant's own actions supported a conviction for ... ...
-
People v. Lazaro
... ... Monaco, 14 N.Y.2d 43, 4546, 248 N.Y.S.2d 41, 197 N.E.2d 532 ; People v. Campbell, 79 A.D.3d 624, 913 N.Y.S.2d 220 ; People v. Torres, 153 A.D.2d 911, 911912, 545 N.Y.S.2d 398 ; People v. Ortiz, 107 A.D.2d 824, 825, 484 N.Y.S.2d 661 ).Accordingly, the jury's verdict convicting the defendant of attempted assault in the first degree as to Arriaga was properly set ... ...
- People v. Hinson
-
People v. Grosso
... ... However, there was no evidence that defendant, who was standing in front of the victim and restraining him, knew that the codefendant had a knife or was planning to use it. "[T]he use of the knife 152 N.Y.S.3d 589 was not open and obvious" ( People v. Campbell, 79 A.D.3d 624, 624, 913 N.Y.S.2d 220 [1st Dept. 2010] ), and defendant released the victim within seconds of the stabbing. Under these circumstances, the record does not support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was aware of the use of the knife but continued to participate in ... ...