People v. Heide
Citation | 84 N.Y.2d 943,644 N.E.2d 1370,620 N.Y.S.2d 814 |
Parties | , 644 N.E.2d 1370 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William HEIDE, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 01 December 1994 |
Court | New York Court of Appeals |
The Appellate Division order 206 A.D.2d 875, 616 N.Y.S.2d 309, should be affirmed.
A two-pronged showing is required to establish entitlement to a lesser included offense charge. First, it must be shown that the additional offense is a lesser included offense within the meaning of CPL 1.20(37). Second, the requesting party must show that there is a reasonable view of the evidence in the particular case that would support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser included offense, but not the greater (CPL 300.50[1]; People v. Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61, 63, 453 N.Y.S.2d 660, 439 N.E.2d 376).
It is undisputed here that criminally negligent homicide is a lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree (see, People v. Stanfield, 36 N.Y.2d 467, 369 N.Y.S.2d 118, 330 N.E.2d 75). Moreover, the fact that defendant intentionally stabbed Golofit does not preclude a finding that defendant committed criminally negligent homicide. In criminal negligence, a person acts with the requisite culpable mental state when such person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the act in question will cause the statutorily described result (Penal Law § 15.05[4]. In the context of criminally negligent homicide, criminal negligence analysis focuses on the actor's awareness of the risk that death will result from the act, not whether the underlying act is intentional. Here, a reasonable view of the record evidence supports a finding that defendant was not aware that stabbing Golofit would result in his death.
Defendant's claim that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation were so prejudicial as to deprive him of a fair trial is unpreserved for this Court's review. Following the Trial Judge's curative instructions, defense counsel neither objected further, nor requested a mistrial. Under these circumstances, the curative instructions must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant's satisfaction (People v. Williams, 46 N.Y.2d 1070, 1071, 416 N.Y.S.2d 792, 390 N.E.2d 299).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Pealer
...[20 N.Y.3d 457]lack merit: the curative instruction during the prosecutor's summation corrected any perceived error (see People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943, 944, 620 N.Y.S.2d 814, 644 N.E.2d 1370 [1994] ); it was not an abuse of discretion to permit a rebuttal witness ( see People v. Anonymous,......
-
Brunson v. Tracy, 03-CV-1895 (DLI)(ASC).
...... People v. Brunson, 284 A.D.2d 406, 726 N.Y.S.2d 281 (2d Dep't 2001). As to the prosecutor's alleged disregard of the court's rulings during petitioner's ...to have corrected the error to the defendant's satisfaction" People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943, 944, 620 N.Y.S.2d 814, 644 N.E.2d 1370 (1994) (citing People v. Williams, 46 N.Y.2d 1070, 1071, 416 N.Y.S.2d 792, 390 N.E.2d 299 ......
-
People v. Nelson
...failed to request additional relief when the Supreme Court sustained objections or provided curative instructions ( see People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943, 944, 620 N.Y.S.2d 814, 644 N.E.2d 1370; People v. Bajana, 82 A.D.3d 1111, 1112, 919 N.Y.S.2d 194; People v. Damon, 78 A.D.3d 860, 911 N.Y.S......
-
Gibbs v. Donnelly
...... The proof of Gibbs' criminal intent was entirely circumstantial. 6 See People's Appellate Brief at 26, Respondent's Exhibit ("Resp't Ex.") F at 139. The prosecution, at trial and on direct appeal, argued that the following ...E.g., People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943, 944, 620 N.Y.S.2d 814, 644 N.E.2d 1370 (1994) (claim unpreserved where defense counsel failed to object further or request a ......