People v. Medina
| Decision Date | 08 November 1996 |
| Citation | 649 N.Y.S.2d 566,233 A.D.2d 927 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jose MEDINA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Edward J. Nowak by James Eckert, Rochester, for appellant.
Howard R. Relin by Wendy Lehmann, Rochester, for respondent.
Before DENMAN, P.J., and LAWTON, FALLON, WESLEY and BALIO, JJ.
Defendant contends that, because the amended bill of particulars refers only to shaking the child, it limits the theory of the People's case to such proof. He contends that County Court therefore erred in refusing his request to instruct the jury in accordance with the language of the amended bill of particulars and erred in instructing the jury that they could convict defendant if they found that he impacted the child's head on an object. We disagree. The indictment alleges that defendant caused the death of a child "by repeatedly shaking [the child] and/or impacting his head on an object." A written statement signed by defendant appended to the indictment states that, as he was shaking the child in his portable crib, the child's forehead struck a wall. The amended bill of particulars states that "defendant repeatedly shook the victim". We conclude that the indictment, appended statement and amended bill of particulars fairly apprised defendant that the injury to the child's forehead occurred while defendant was shaking the child, and the amended bill of particulars did not change or limit the theory of prosecution (see, People v. Wideman, 195 A.D.2d 582, 600 N.Y.S.2d 496, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 728, 602 N.Y.S.2d 826, 622 N.E.2d 327; People v. Hinchy, 170 A.D.2d 997, 566 N.Y.S.2d 423, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1011, 575 N.Y.S.2d 819, 581 N.E.2d 1065). There is no merit to the additional contention that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe.
Judgement unanimously affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Green
...theory of prosecution" that defendant had intentionally stabbed both in a rapid sequence during the brawl ( People v. Medina, 233 A.D.2d 927, 927, 649 N.Y.S.2d 566 [1996], lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 926, 654 N.Y.S.2d 728, 677 N.E.2d 300 [1996] ; see CPL 200.95[8] ; People v. Moore, 274 A.D.2d 959,......
-
People v. Snowden, 156S–2014.
...in undue prejudice to defendant (see People v. Wilson, 252 A.D.2d 960, 961 (1998), Iv denied 92 N.Y.2d 931 (1998) ; see also People v. Medina, 233 A.D.2d 927 (19960 IV DENIED 89 ny2D 926 [1996] ).").The Indictment at Bar specifically alleged that defendants Jenkins and Snowden "did knowingl......
- People v. Chrysler
-
People v. Ransdell
...147, 641 N.E.2d 168). We do not read the People's voluntary disclosure form as limiting the theory of prosecution (see, People v. Medina, 233 A.D.2d 927, 649 N.Y.S.2d 566, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 926, 654 N.Y.S.2d 728, 677 N.E.2d ...