People v. Green
| Decision Date | 26 May 1988 |
| Citation | 71 N.Y.2d 1006,525 N.E.2d 742,530 N.Y.S.2d 97 |
| Parties | , 525 N.E.2d 742 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lyman GREEN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 126 A.D.2d 105, 512 N.Y.S.2d 714, should be affirmed.
Defendant was convicted of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10) and assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05). Defendant argues that, because the jury acquitted his codefendant of the robbery as an accomplice pursuant to Penal Law § 20.00, the verdict is repugnant. He contends that the jury necessarily made the contradictory findings that, in committing the robbery, the defendant was "aided by another person actually present" and that, for accomplice liability purposes, the codefendant, the other person present, did not aid him.
A determination of whether a verdict is repugnant is based solely on a review of the trial court's charge regardless of its accuracy ( see, People v. Hampton, 61 N.Y.2d 963, 964, 475 N.Y.S.2d 273, 463 N.E.2d 614; People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 7, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617). An examination of the instructions given to the jury here reveals that the trial court, in defining the phrase "aided by another person actually present" for purposes of Penal Law § 160.10(1), did not instruct the jury that the actions and mental state of the other person had to be sufficient to convict that person as an accomplice under Penal Law § 20.00. Accordingly, we conclude that the jury's verdict was not inherently contradictory (cf., People v. Hampton, supra ). We note, however, that the Appellate Division erroneously viewed the verdicts as not being repugnant both by going beyond the elements of the crimes as charged and by making a factual analysis of the evidence (People v. Tucker, supra, 55 N.Y.2d at 4, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617).
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lau v. Goord
... ... See People v. Lau, 11 A.D.3d 482, 782 N.Y.S.2d 777 (2d Dep't 2004) ... On November 15, 2004, petitioner sought leave to appeal to the New ... Green, 71 N.Y.2d 1006, 1008, 530 N.Y.S.2d 97, 525 N.E.2d 742 (1988) ... Here, the jury's initial verdict was indeed defective. The ... ...
-
People v. Muhammad
... ... at 4, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617) without regard to the accuracy of those instructions ( see id. at 7, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617; see also People v. Green, 71 N.Y.2d 1006, 1008, 530 N.Y.S.2d 97, 525 N.E.2d 742 [1988]; People v. Hampton, 61 N.Y.2d 963, 964, 475 N.Y.S.2d 273, 463 N.E.2d 614 [1984] ). The underlying purpose of this rule is to ensure that an individual is not convicted of a crime on which the jury has actually found that the defendant ... ...
-
People v. Davey
... ... Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 7, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617, rearg. denied 55 N.Y.2d 1039, 449 N.Y.S.2d 1030, 434 N.E.2d 1081 ). "A determination of whether a verdict is repugnant is based solely on a review of the trial court's charge regardless of its accuracy" 22 N.Y.S.3d 716(People v. Green, 71 N.Y.2d 1006, 1008, 530 N.Y.S.2d 97, 525 N.E.2d 742 ). Here, the court gave the same charge to the jury on the first two counts of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, but stated that the first count was with respect to the folded can lid that was allegedly found on defendant when he ... ...
-
People v. Gassett, 2004 NY Slip Op 50890(U) (NY 5/27/2004)
... ... In addition, Defendant's explanations of these events contradicted his Grand Jury testimony as well as Thelma's testimony. Moreover, Defendant testified at trial that he was wearing green pajamas, similar to what he heard Thelma state in her testimony. However, in the Grand Jury, Defendant testified that they were black/greyish ... Defendant stated that although he considered Lashere's threat to kill him credible, he did not report it to the police. Defendant ... ...