People v. Gill

• Decision Date: 11 June 1996
• Citation: 644 N.Y.S.2d 21,228 A.D.2d 240
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael GILL, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 21

644 N.Y.S.2d 21

228 A.D.2d 240

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael GILL, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department.

June 11, 1996.

Gregory H. Mansfield, for respondent.

Michelle Fox, for defendant.

Before MILONAS, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, WALLACH, ROSS and TOM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered July 22, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 2 1/2 to 7 1/2 years, unanimously affirmed.

There was sufficient evidence that the victim suffered "serious physical injury". He was shot at close range, in the chin, and the bullet lodged there was removed by incision. The victim underwent a subsequent operation due to sharp pains he experienced after the bullet had been removed. In addition, the victim sustained a chip fracture of the mandible. He stayed at the hospital one night, and returned there on "multiple" occasions and continued to suffer from headaches through the time of trial, one and one-half years after the shooting. Under the circumstances, there was sufficient evidence that he had sustained physical injury which caused a protracted impairment of health (see, People v. Staunton, 190 A.D.2d 703, 593 N.Y.S.2d 534, lv.denied 81 N.Y.2d 977, 598 N.Y.S.2d 778, 615 N.E.2d 235).

Defendant claims that the prosecutor's conduct during trial and summation was improper and denied him a fair trial. Defendant either failed to raise any objection at all, or failed to object on the grounds he now raises and these issues are therefore unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.