People v. Reed
| Citation | 624 N.Y.S.2d 693,212 A.D.2d 962 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert I. REED, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 03 February 1995 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Richard H. Speranza by Robert Viola, Lockport, for appellant.
Matthew J. Murphy, III by Thomas Brandt, Lockport, for respondent.
Before DENMAN, P.J., and BALIO, FALLON, CALLAHAN and DAVIS, JJ.
County Court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating the indictments for trial. Defendant does not dispute that the counts in the two indictments were joinable in that they "are the same or similar in law" (CPL 200.20[2][c]. Defendant failed to establish that substantially more proof would be required on one count than any other or that he had important testimony to give with respect to one count and a genuine need to refrain from testifying on another count (see, CPL 200.20[3]; People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1, 451 N.Y.S.2d 6, 436 N.E.2d 456). The mere fact that each count involved a charge of rape in the first degree does not preclude joinder (see, People v. Hall, 169 A.D.2d 778, 565 N.Y.S.2d 144; People v. Telford, 134 A.D.2d 632, 521 N.Y.S.2d 523, lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 903, 527 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 523 N.E.2d 319), and defendant's contention that the jury would be unable to consider the facts of each case separately was speculative at best. Indeed, the verdict, which found defendant not guilty on two counts involving separate victims and guilty on two other counts, reflects that the jury was able to consider each count as a separate and distinct incident.
The court's charge on reasonable doubt as a whole conveyed the proper standard of proof to the jury. In any event, the challenged language, "the search for the truth" (see, People v. Carfagna, 212 A.D.2d 960, 624 N.Y.S.2d 986 [decided herewith], was given in this case in the context of the court's instruction on credibility issues.
Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the sentence imposed is unduly severe and must be modified (see, People v. Holloway, 185 A.D.2d 646, 647, 586 N.Y.S.2d 172). Therefore, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15[6][b]; People v. Thompson, 60 N.Y.2d 513, 519, 470 N.Y.S.2d 551, 458 N.E.2d 1228), we modify the sentence to direct that the indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 8 1/3 to 25 years run concurrently.
Judgment unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and as modified affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Aleksey
... ... Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) ; State v. Reed, 332 S.C. 35, 42, 503 S.E.2d 747, 750 (1998) ... Moreover, law enforcement officers may certainly speak with a suspect who reinitiates communication ... The statement was relevant because it suggested appellant's motive for shooting the trooper. See People v. Hayes, 21 Cal.4th 1211, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 211, 989 P.2d 645, 677 (1999) (appellant's statement regarding mafia connections introduced to establish ... ...
-
Reed v. Great Meadow Correctional Facility, 95-CV-00612C(H).
... ... p. 3). Petitioner also appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court Appellate Division's Fourth Department. On February 3, 1995, the Fourth Department affirmed petitioner's conviction, but modified his sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively. People v. Reed, 212 A.D.2d 962, 624 N.Y.S.2d 693 (4th Dep't 1995). The New York State Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for leave to appeal on June 28, 1995. People v. Reed, 86 N.Y.2d 739, 631 N.Y.S.2d 620, 655 N.E.2d 717 (1995) ... DISCUSSION ... There are unresolved ... ...
- People v. Ward
- People v. Taylor