People v. Lappard
| Citation | 215 A.D.2d 245,627 N.Y.S.2d 613 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jose LAPPARD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 16 May 1995 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
M.C. Farrington, for respondent.
J. Chung, for defendant-appellant.
ELLERIN, J.P., and ROSS, NARDELLI, TOM and MAZZARELLI, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), rendered April 9, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 15 years to life and 10 years to life, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 476 N.Y.S.2d 825, 465 N.E.2d 364, cert. denied 469 U.S. 932, 105 S.Ct. 327, 83 L.Ed.2d 264), there was ample proof to support the finding that defendant's sneakers constituted a dangerous instrument within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(13) (see, People v. Carter, 53 N.Y.2d 113, 440 N.Y.S.2d 607, 423 N.E.2d 30; People v. Scipio, 169 A.D.2d 596, 565 N.Y.S.2d 15, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 966, 570 N.Y.S.2d 500, 573 N.E.2d 588), and, upon an independent review of the facts, such a finding clearly was not against the weight of the evidence (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). The credibility of the eyewitness bystander, who testified that he observed defendant wearing sneakers stomp the victim on the head while he was laying on the ground covered in blood, was properly placed before the jury, and we find no reason to disturb its determination.
Defendant's eve-of-trial application to discharge his assigned counsel was properly denied for failure to show good cause for a substitution (People v. Robinson, 203 A.D.2d 165, 610 N.Y.S.2d 789, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 971, 616 N.Y.S.2d 24, 639 N.E.2d 764).
Defendant's claim that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor's comment on summation concerning his decision not to testify is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05[2], and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, if we were to review, we would find that the comments in question were a fair response to defendant's summation (People v. Carraquillo, 202 A.D.2d 253, 254, 608 N.Y.S.2d 461, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 823, 617...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sandel
...792 N.Y.S.2d 197 (2nd Dept.), appeal denied, 4 N.Y.3d 888, 798 N.Y.S.2d 733, 831 N.E.2d 978 (2005) ; sneakers ( People v. Lappard, 215 A.D.2d 245, 627 N.Y.S.2d 613 (1st Dept.)appeal denied, 86 N.Y.2d 737, 631 N.Y.S.2d 618, 655 N.E.2d 715 (1995) and a pit bull terrier ( People v. Mateo, 77 A......
-
People v. Vukel
...wisdom and logic (see, generally, People v. Curtis, 222 A.D.2d 237, 635 N.Y.S.2d 186 [1st Dept., 1995]; People v. Lappard, 215 A.D.2d 245, 627 N.Y.S.2d 613 [1st Dept., 1995]; People v. Flowers, 178 A.D.2d 682, 577 N.Y.S.2d 674 [3rd Dept., 1991]; People v. Ludwig, Defendant's reliance on Peo......
-
People v. Hill
...; see Penal Law § 10.00[13] ; People v. Carter, 53 N.Y.2d 113, 116–117, 440 N.Y.S.2d 607, 423 N.E.2d 30 [1981] ; People v. Lappard, 215 A.D.2d 245, 245, 627 N.Y.S.2d 613 [1995], lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 737, 631 N.Y.S.2d 618, 655 N.E.2d 715 [1995] ). Therefore, after assessing the evidence in a......
-
People v. Owusu
...386 N.E.2d 1070 [handkerchief]; People v. Marshall, 105 A.D.2d 849, 482 N.Y.S.2d 45 [cloth ankle or wrist restraint]; People v. Lappard, 215 A.D.2d 245, 627 N.Y.S.2d 613 [sneakers] ). "Under the 'use-oriented' approach, the object itself does not have to be inherently dangerous." (People v.......