People v. McKenna
| Decision Date | 05 June 1989 |
| Citation | 543 N.Y.S.2d 320,151 A.D.2d 510 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. William McKENNA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Barbara L. Hartung, New York City, for appellant. Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Peter A. Weinstein and Miriam R. Best, of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered July 1, 1986, convicting him of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree (two counts) and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's claim of error regarding the verdict sheets submitted to the jury is not preserved for appellate review since, unlike his codefendants, (see, People v. Valle, 143 A.D.2d 160, 531 N.Y.S.2d 929), he failed to object to their submission (CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830, 530 N.Y.S.2d 543, 526 N.E.2d 33; People v. Rodriguez, 144 A.D.2d 598, 535 N.Y.S.2d 973). Furthermore, we decline to review the claim in the interest of justice in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The defendant also contends that the court erred in refusing to preclude the testimony of those prosecution witnesses whose pretrial statements were included in a file of irretrievably lost police reports (see, People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881, cert. denied 368 U.S. 866, 82 S.Ct. 117, 7 L.Ed.2d 64). For the reasons stated in People v. Valle, 143 A.D.2d 160, 531 N.Y.S.2d 929, supra, we find this contention to be without merit. Finally, we find no error in the court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds (see, People v. Anderson, 66 N.Y.2d 529, 498 N.Y.S.2d 119, 488 N.E.2d 1231; People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303; People v. Brown, 113 A.D.2d 812, 493 N.Y.S.2d 568) or in the court's refusal to charge the jury on the defense of justification (see, Penal Law § 35.15; People v. Reynoso, 73 N.Y.2d 816, 537 N.Y.S.2d 113, 534 N.E.2d 30; People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299, 456 N.Y.S.2d 677, 442 N.E.2d 1188; People v. Odinga, 143 A.D.2d 202; 531 N.Y.S.2d 818; People v. Johnson, 125 A.D.2d 493, 509 N.Y.S.2d 410).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McKenna
...motion, defendant was tried and convicted of the charged counts. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction. 151 A.D.2d 510, 543 N.Y.S.2d 320. We now CPL 30.30(1)(a) requires the People to be ready for trial within six months of the commencement of a criminal action in which......
-
People v. Sennon
...a codefendant objected to the statement, no objection was forthcoming from this defendant (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. McKenna, 151 A.D.2d 510, 543 N.Y.S.2d 320, revd on other grounds, 76 N.Y.2d 59, 556 N.Y.S.2d 514, 555 N.E.2d In any event, the contention is without merit. Where one code......
-
People v. Smith
...is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 248-252, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9; People v. McKenna, 151 A.D.2d 510, 543 N.Y.S.2d 320, rev'd on other grounds 76 N.Y.2d 59, 556 N.Y.S.2d 514, 555 N.E.2d 911). Any prejudice which might have arisen due to the......
-
People v. Campbell
...to the jury with respect to the justification defense, are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. McKenna, 151 A.D.2d 510, 543 N.Y.S.2d 320, lv. granted 74 N.Y.2d 814, 546 N.Y.S.2d 572, 545 N.E.2d 886; People v. Lugo, 150 A.D.2d 502, 540 N.Y.S.2d 750). In any event,......