People v. Goodfriend
| Decision Date | 18 December 1984 |
| Citation | 64 N.Y.2d 695,485 N.Y.S.2d 519,474 N.E.2d 1187 |
| Parties | , 474 N.E.2d 1187 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael GOODFRIEND, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 100 A.D.2d 781, 474 N.Y.S.2d 65, should be affirmed.
Defendant was indicted for first degree rape and two counts of first degree sodomy, all arising out of a single occurrence. After a jury trial, he was convicted of one count of sodomy and acquitted of the remaining counts. On defendant's motion, the trial court vacated the verdict on the ground of repugnancy. 113 Misc.2d 333, 449 N.Y.S.2d 374. The Appellate Division reversed, reinstated the verdict, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Defendant's claim of a repugnant verdict is without merit. As this court held in People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 4, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617, "there is a claim that repugnant jury verdicts have been rendered in response to a multiple-count indictment, a verdict as to a particular count shall be set aside only when it is inherently inconsistent when viewed in light of the elements of each crime as charged to the jury." There is no dispute in this case that, under this standard, defendant's acquittal on two counts did not necessarily negate an essential element of the remaining count. Defendant only posits that his acquittal for two counts necessarily indicates the jury's acceptance of a proffered defense that would be equally applicable to the count for which he was convicted, rendering it inconsistent. This type of speculation as to "how the jury perceived and weighed the evidence" and whether it acted "irrationally" was rejected in Tucker, id., at p. 7, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617.
Defendant also contends that, as instructed, the jury was precluded from finding that defendant had engaged in sodomy but not rape. When read in isolation, a portion of the charge supports this position. Viewed in its entirety, however, the charge indicated the independent nature of the crimes and the jury's obligation to consider them separately.
To the extent that defendant asserts that the trial court's basis for granting his motion to vacate the verdict was its independent weighing of the evidence, it is sufficient to note...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Claudio v. Scully
...be the same on the post-trial appeal now afforded by virtue of the conditional writ. See People v. Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695, 697, 485 N.Y.S.2d 519, 521, 474 N.E.2d 1187, 1188 (1984). Because we cannot be certain whether the Court of Appeals can now reach the merits of Claudio's state law c......
-
People v. Gallagher
...from cases involving convictions and acquittals on separate counts of multiple-count indictments (see, e.g., People v. Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695, 485 N.Y.S.2d 519, 474 N.E.2d 1187; People v. Satloff, 82 A.D.2d 896, 441 N.Y.S.2d 96, affd. 56 N.Y.2d 745, 452 N.Y.S.2d 12, 437 N.E.2d 271; Peopl......
-
People v. Concepcion
...663, citing People v. Romero, 91 N.Y.2d 750, 753–754, 675 N.Y.S.2d 588, 698 N.E.2d 424 [1998] and People v. Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695, 697–698, 485 N.Y.S.2d 519, 474 N.E.2d 1187 [1984] ). Because we agreed with the Appellate Division's unanimous rejection of Supreme Court's reason for denyi......
-
People v. Muhammad
...675, 767 N.E.2d 132 [2002]; People v. Rayam, 94 N.Y.2d at 561–563, 708 N.Y.S.2d 37, 729 N.E.2d 694; People v. Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695, 697, 485 N.Y.S.2d 519, 474 N.E.2d 1187 [1984]; People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d at 7, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617). We further explained in Tucker how the......