People v. King, 2014–07024
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 116 N.Y.S.3d 44,178 A.D.3d 853 |
| Docket Number | Ind. No. 64/13,2014–07024 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. David E. KING, Jr., Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 11 December 2019 |
178 A.D.3d 853
116 N.Y.S.3d 44
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
David E. KING, Jr., Appellant.
2014–07024
Ind. No. 64/13
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—October 15, 2019
December 11, 2019
Del Atwell, East Hampton, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
SHERI S. ROMAN, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Stephen L. Greller, J.), rendered July
10, 2014, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal contempt in the first degree, and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record reflects that the defendant was properly provided with notice of the grand jury proceedings through notice to his attorney, and that he chose not to testify before the grand jury. Therefore, we agree with the County Court's determination to deny the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment (see CPL 190.50[5] ; People v. Helm, 51 N.Y.2d 853, 433 N.Y.S.2d 757, 413 N.E.2d 1172 ; People v. Caswell, 56 A.D.3d 1300, 867 N.Y.S.2d 638 ).
The defendant contends that the County Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request for an adjournment of the trial to call an expert physician to testify as to the condition of the defendant's hand at the time he shot the complainant. "As a general matter of policy, requests for brief adjournments to secure witnesses should be granted where the witness is identified, is within the court's jurisdiction and there is a showing of some diligence and good faith" ( People v. Brown, 78 A.D.2d 861, 861, 432 N.Y.S.2d 630 ; see People v. Moutinho, 146 A.D.2d 650, 536 N.Y.S.2d 549 ). Here, however, there was no showing of diligence and good faith. Defense counsel began representing the defendant more than a year before the trial, made no disclosure of the expert or the defendant's medical records pursuant to the People's CPL 240.30 demand, and did not indicate that he had obtained an expert until after the People rested their case. Considering the delay in obtaining an expert, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request for an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jagota, 2014–04592
...N.E.2d 672 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his challenge for 178 A.D.3d 853 cause to a prospective juror. The statements made by the prospective juror did not indicate that he had "a state of mind that [was] likely ......
-
Hanlon v. Hanlon, M–7336
...in his escrow account and, having refused to transfer the money to the wife's attorney pursuant to a stipulation, respondent, without 116 N.Y.S.3d 44 permission or authority, stole $71,690.07 of that money for his personal use.As part of his plea agreement, respondent agreed to participate ......