People v. King
| Decision Date | 19 April 1990 |
| Citation | 554 N.Y.S.2d 517,160 A.D.2d 531 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael KING, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
D. Roney, for respondent.
D.E. Gilbert, for defendant-appellant.
Before KUPFERMAN, J.P., and ROSS, ROSENBERGER and WALLACH, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic S. Berman, J.), rendered June 20, 1983, after a jury trial, convicting defendant of two counts of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him to two concurrent terms of from 2 1/2 to 7 1/2 years imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant was convicted of acting with an accomplice and using a gun to rob the complainant during the early morning hours, after the complainant exited the subway en route to work. Defendant and his accomplice were immediately apprehended by police officers on patrol.
The primary issue on this appeal concerns the validity of the record as reconstructed at a hearing held pursuant to this Court's order upon defendant's motion for summary reversal. Minutes of the People's direct case, consisting of two days of testimony, had not been preserved, although the minutes of defendant's case and the People's rebuttal were available for appeal. At the reconstruction hearing, the trial prosecutor, relying on her notes, exhibits, and a listing of questions and answers, testified concerning her recollection of the trial, as refreshed by those notes and the case file. Her testimony set forth the trial testimony of the complainant and the police witnesses as to defendant's description, his apprehension and statements to the police and the recovery of the complainant's property from the co-defendant and a gun from the street, where defendant had been observed discarding it. The prosecutor also testified to inconsistencies in the complainant's description which we, however, find to be insignificant. Trial counsel also testified at the hearing, although we note that counsel's recollection was only general, rather than specific. The hearing court, after reviewing its own notes of the trial, over which it had presided, found that the trial prosecutor's testimony was "quite extensive and complete" and consistent with the court's notes. On this basis, the court certified the reconstructed record to be accurate.
On appeal, after reviewing the reconstructed record, as well as the preserved record of defendant's case and the People's rebuttal, w...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. DePastino, 14695
...of trial missing); Commonwealth v. Harris, 376 Mass. 74, 78-79, 379 N.E.2d 1073 (1978) (entire transcript missing); People v. King, 160 A.D.2d 531, 532, 554 N.Y.S.2d 517, appeal denied, 76 N.Y.2d 847, 559 N.E.2d 1291, 560 N.Y.S.2d 132 (1990) (state's entire case missing). In the present cas......
-
State v. Williams
...of two state's attorneys and two courtroom observers even though no notes included any objections by the defendant); People v. King, 160 A.D.2d 531, 532, 554 N.Y.S.2d 517, appeal denied, 76 N.Y.2d 847, 559 N.E.2d 1291, 560 N.Y.S.2d 132 (1990) (reconstructed record of state's case based on n......
-
State v. Rae, No. 29563.
...of trial missing); Commonwealth v. Harris, 376 Mass. 74, 78-79, 379 N.E.2d 1073 (1978) (entire transcript missing); People v. King, 160 A.D.2d 531, 532, 554 N.Y.S.2d 517, appeal denied, 76 N.Y.2d 847, 559 N.E.2d 1291, 560 N.Y.S.2d 132 (1990) (state's entire case missing)." omitted; internal......
- Charles B. De Than Group v. Richmond