People v. May
| Decision Date | 16 December 1976 |
| Citation | 55 A.D.2d 739,389 N.Y.S.2d 468 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Laura A. MAY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joseph J. Balok, Jr., Elmira, for appellant.
Robert L. Flack, Schuyler County Dist. Atty., Watkins Glen (Kathleen Heirich Casey, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SWEENEY, J.P., and KANE, MAIN, LARKIN and HERLIHY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schuyler County, rendered January 10, 1976, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of reckless endangerment in the second degree.
Except for the existence of a decree dissolving the marriage between this defendant and the complaint, her former husband, all proceedings in this matter would probably have been relegated to and resolved by the Family Court of Schuyler County (People v. Williams, 24 N.Y.2d 274, 284, 300 N.Y.S.2d 89, 96, 248 N.E.2d 8, 13; Family Ct. Act, §§ 812, 813). This record illustrates many of the problems that survive the termination of a marriage and, in fact, the incident that culminated in the arrest of the defendant (some three weeks after the event) occurred as she was returning the minor children of the marriage after the exercise of visitation rights.
Without describing the details of the altercation in depth, it should be noted that the defendant was indicted for attempted assault in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the second degree. She was acquitted of the former charge, but convicted of the latter. In other words, the jury found a lack of any Intent on defendant's part to cause harm, but did agree that her conduct was Reckless in nature (Penal Law, §§ 110.00; 120.20). In its charge to the jury, the court employed subdivision 3 of section 15.05 of the Penal Law in defining 'recklessly' including the statement that one must consciously disregard a substantial and 'unjustifiable' risk. The court did not define or charge the defense of justification (Penal Law, § 35.15). True, there was no request to so charge, nor were there any exceptions taken to the charge as given. However, from the testimony in the record, particularly the version of the confrontation as described by the defendant, simple justice cried out for instructions to the jury on this defense. Our view is reinforced by the nature of the questions asked by the jury when they returned for further instructions on the charge of reckless endangerment. These...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McManus
...recklessness or negligence may suffice" (State v. Murphy, 185 N.J.Super. 72, 75, 447 A.2d 219, 220, supra ). Arguably, People v. May, 55 A.D.2d 739, 389 N.Y.S.2d 468, is to the contrary. In that case, the defendant was charged with attempted assault in the second degree and reckless endange......
-
People v. Vera
...judicial guidance with respect to the asserted defense of alibi (People v. Bruno, 77 A.D.2d 922, 431 N.Y.S.2d 106; see People v. May, 55 A.D.2d 739, 389 N.Y.S.2d 468), for without such proper guidance the jurors could easily have been led to an incorrect assumption, for example, that defend......
-
People v. Jose C.
...under the facts at bar to reckless endangerment, first degree (see People v. Zurita, 76 A.D.2d 871, 428 N.Y.S.2d 495; People v. May, 55 A.D.2d 739, 389 N.Y.S.2d 468; and compare People v. Padgett, 60 N.Y.2d 142, 468 N.Y.S.2d 854, 456 N.E.2d 795 with People v. Huntley, 59 N.Y.2d 868, 465 N.Y......
-
People v. Bruno
...guidance concerning the manner in which to resolve them. (See People v. Gardner, 59 A.D.2d 913, 399 N.Y.S.2d 146; People v. May, 55 A.D.2d 739, 389 N.Y.S.2d 468.) The trial court's denial of defendant's request to instruct the jury concerning the basic principle that should it disbelieve an......