People v. Harris
| Decision Date | 09 April 1979 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Wylie HARRIS, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Meiselman & Farber, Poughkeepsie (Richard T. Moran, Poughkeepsie, of counsel), for appellant and appellant pro se.
Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Joseph M. Latino and Gerald D. Reilly, White Plains, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P. J., and SUOZZI, O'CONNOR and MANGANO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered July 28, 1977, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to the time already served. As so modified, judgment affirmed.
On November 26, 1976 defendant concededly shot and killed Mitchell Best. The defense to the charges arising from that act was that the defendant acted unintentionally and, in any event, with legal justification since he was interrupting a burglary. On appeal defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial on the ground that the Trial Judge failed to marshal the evidence (see CPL 300.10 subd. 2).
While we agree that the evidence was not adequately marshalled, we fail to find that the error requires reversal. Although many witnesses testified, the case was, essentially, a simple one (cf. People v. Rivera, 60 A.D.2d 852, 400 N.Y.S.2d 583). Moreover, defendant failed to raise the issue at the trial. We also note that the charge, taken in its entirety, is unquestionably fair to the defendant. Accordingly, a new trial is not warranted.
As to the sentence, in view of the 20 months defendant has already served and the extenuating circumstances present here, we reduce it to the time already served.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Roopchand
...L.Ed.2d 706; People v. Little, 98 A.D.2d 752, 469 N.Y.S.2d 462, affd. 62 N.Y.2d 1020, 479 N.Y.S.2d 518, 468 N.E.2d 700; People v. Harris, 69 A.D.2d 843, 415 N.Y.S.2d 72). The court gave appropriate instructions and accurately summarized the testimony of all three witnesses. Finally, we woul......
-
People v. Brensic
...to the court's marshaling of the evidence, and thus, has failed to preserve his argument for appellate review (see, People v. Harris, 69 A.D.2d 843, 415 N.Y.S.2d 72). In any event, the trial court's charge satisfied the dictates of CPL 300.10(2), since the court marshaled the evidence and s......
-
People v. Tabora
...simple case such as this, however, failure of the court to marshal the evidence does not require reversal ( see, People v. Harris, 69 A.D.2d 843, 415 N.Y.S.2d 72) and any deficiency in the marshalling did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial ( see, People v. Culhane, 45 N.Y.2d 757, 408......
-
People v. Carney
...how to relate the law to the facts, it is Not always necessary to an adequate explanation, particularly in simple cases (People v. Harris, 69 A.D.2d 843, 415 N.Y.S.2d 72; People v. Williamson, 51 A.D.2d 843, 380 N.Y.S.2d 778), or in cases involving a large number of witnesses (People v. Bla......