People v. Jones
| Decision Date | 27 September 1993 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Bobby JONES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Anthony C. Cinetto, New York City, for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Moira E. Casey, and Christopher Tate, of counsel), for respondent.
Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and LAWRENCE, O'BRIEN and COPERTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.), rendered August 15, 1991, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We disagree with the defendant's contention that the People failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence to establish his guilt of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Physical injury" is defined as "impairment of physical condition or substantial pain" (Penal Law § 10.00[9]. Generally, the question of whether "physical injury" has been established is one for the trier of fact to determine (see, People v. Smith, 176 A.D.2d 904, 575 N.Y.S.2d 671; People v. Jones, 118 A.D.2d 658, 500 N.Y.S.2d 9). Here, the complainant testified that the defendant hit him with a metal pipe about the head and arms; that as a result he was hospitalized for one week; and that his left arm was placed in a cast and his right arm was put in a sling. He also testified that he suffered "excruciating pain" and pain killers were prescribed for him. The complainant testified further that as a result of the injuries he was never able to engage in his construction work again, because he could not lift anything heavy. Moreover, the People introduced hospital records which indicated the extent of the complainant's injuries. Thus, the element of physical injury required by assault in the second degree was proved beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Rodney, 134 A.D.2d 463, 521 N.Y.S.2d 86).
A dangerous instrument is defined as any instrument, article, or substance "which, under the circumstances in which it is used * * * is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury" (Penal Law § 10.00[13]. Thus, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sandel
...if improperly used: an automobile ( People v. Diaz, 129 A.D.2d 968, 514 N.Y.S.2d 150 (4th Dept. 1987) ; a lead pipe, ( People v. Jones , 196 A.D.2d 889, 602 N.Y.S.2d 159 (2nd Dept.), appeal denied, 82 N.Y.2d 897, 610 N.Y.S.2d 164, 632 N.E.2d 474 (1993) ; a pistol ( People v. Gamble, 135 A.D......
-
Brown v. Kopek
...a dangerous instrument in the context of the weapon possession charge when used in certain circumstances. People v. Jones, 196 A.D.2d 889, 890 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993) (holding that the object does not need to be inherently dangerous to be considered a dangerous instrument; it need only be rea......
-
People v. Briggs
...which the question is one of law" (Matter of Philip A., 49 N.Y.2d 198, 200, 424 N.Y.S.2d 418, 400 N.E.2d 358; see, People v. Jones, 196 A.D.2d 889, 889, 602 N.Y.S.2d 159). In this case, the evidence indicates that the defendant punched the complainant in the right side of the face and that ......
-
People v. Johnson
... ... Ray, 65 N.Y.2d 282, 491 N.Y.S.2d 283, 480 N.E.2d 1065; People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 528, 419 N.Y.S.2d 447, 393 N.E.2d 443; People v. Esposito, 37 N.Y.2d 156, 371 N.Y.S.2d 681, 332 N.E.2d 863; People v. Warren, supra ). The test is whether the private conduct of the defendant's mother and his brother became "so pervaded by governmental involvement that it los[t] its ... ...