People v. Medina

• Decision Date: 06 December 2012
• Citation: 955 N.Y.S.2d 329,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08433,101 A.D.3d 453
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edwin MEDINA, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

101 A.D.3d 453

955 N.Y.S.2d 329

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08433

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Edwin MEDINA, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Dec. 6, 2012.

Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Allen Fallek of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Nicole Coviello of counsel), for respondent.

TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, MOSKOWITZ, ABDUS–SALAAM, FEINMAN, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered June 5, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree and three counts of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 3 1/2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility of witnesses, intent and accessorial liability.

The court properly exercised its discretion in instructing the jury that it should not consider self-defense or justification. Although there was evidence supporting a justification charge, and the court had agreed to deliver one, both defendant and his jointly tried codefendant expressly withdrew their requests for such a charge. The court reasonably anticipated, given the evidence and the parties' arguments, that the jury might speculate about such a defense ( see People v. Rodriguez, 52 A.D.3d 399, 860 N.Y.S.2d 523 [2008],lv. denied11 N.Y.3d 834, 868 N.Y.S.2d 609, 897 N.E.2d 1093 [2008] ). Defendant did not preserve his claim that the language of the challenged instruction undermined his lack-of-intent defense and was otherwise prejudicial, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits.

Defendant's remaining argument is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits.