People v. Pawlowski
| Decision Date | 24 January 1986 |
| Citation | 498 N.Y.S.2d 711,116 A.D.2d 985 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph R. PAWLOWSKI, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joseph R. Pawlowski, Attica, for appellant.
Ronald L. Fancher, Batavia, for respondent.
Before DILLON, P.J., and DENMAN, BOOMER, GREEN, and O'DONNELL, JJ.
We have reviewed all of defendant's contentions on appeal and we find them to be without merit. We conclude that the court made a searching inquiry before permitting defendant to act as his own attorney and it properly determined that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel (see People v. Vivenzio, 62 N.Y.2d 775, 477 N.Y.S.2d 318, 465 N.E.2d 1254). The court's instructions to the jury concerning intent, felony murder, and alibi were correct and the court did not unfairly marshal the evidence. The court properly refused to charge the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree because there was no view of the evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the shooting was reckless rather than intentional. The discarding of the handwritten notes by the police officer when he prepared his typed report did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Sirianni, 97 A.D.2d 938, 468 N.Y.S.2d 738), nor did any of the claimed improper tactics of the district attorney. The statement of defendant requesting a prison inmate to kill an essential witness was properly admitted as evidence of consciousness of guilt (see Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 167, p 134 People v. Shilitano, 218 N.Y. 161, 112 N.E. 733). Also, in ruling on the Sandoval motion, the court properly refused to suppress cross-examination concerning defendant's prior conviction for armed robbery since defendant's specialization in one type of illegal activity should not shield him from impeachment by a prior conviction (see People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 464 N.Y.S.2d 458, 451 N.E.2d 216).
Moreover, many of the issues raised by defendant on this appeal were not preserved for review as a matter of law and, because of the ample and persuasive evidence of guilt, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction to reverse in the interest of justice.
Finally, defendant's contention that the court, on the first trial, should have granted defendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal (see People v. Tingue, 91 A.D.2d 166, 458 N.Y.S.2d 429), is without merit. Accepting defendant's statement that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pawlowski v. Kelly, 89-CV-1443A.
...10, 1975. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed the judgment of conviction on January 24, 1986. People v. Pawlowski, 116 A.D.2d 985, 498 N.Y.S.2d 711 (4th Dept. 1986). Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied on April 17, 1986. 67 N.Y.2d 948, 502 N.Y.S.2d 1041, 494 N.......
-
People v. Chatt
...at the first trial was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of murder in the second degree ( see People v. Pawlowski, 116 A.D.2d 985, 986, 498 N.Y.S.2d 711, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 948, 502 N.Y.S.2d 1041, 494 N.E.2d 126; cf. People v. Hart, 300 A.D.2d 987, 988, 751 N.Y.S.2d 339, a......
-
People v. Thomas
...at trial is evidence of consciousness of guilt and further supports the jury's finding of guilt (see generally People v. Pawlowski, 116 A.D.2d 985, 986, 498 N.Y.S.2d 711 [4th Dept. 1986], lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 948, 502 N.Y.S.2d 1041, 494 N.E.2d 126 [1986] ). Based on the foregoing, we conclud......
-
People v. Kalinowski
...that defendant attempted to kill a prosecution witness is admissible as evidence of her consciousness of guilt ( see People v. Pawlowski, 116 A.D.2d 985, 986, 498 N.Y.S.2d 711,lv. denied67 N.Y.2d 948, 502 N.Y.S.2d 1041, 494 N.E.2d 126;see also People v. Arguinzoni, 48 A.D.3d 1239, 1240, 852......