People v. Skinner
| Decision Date | 15 April 1994 |
| Citation | 203 A.D.2d 891,611 N.Y.S.2d 720 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William J. SKINNER, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant.
John Tunney, Bath, for respondent.
Before DENMAN, P.J., and BALIO, LAWTON, DOERR and DAVIS, JJ.
Defendant's contention that County Court erred in failing to charge sua sponte vehicular manslaughter as a lesser included offense has not been preserved for our review because defendant failed to request that such charge be given (see, People v. Veras, 175 A.D.2d 710, 712, 572 N.Y.S.2d 912, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 1130, 578 N.Y.S.2d 888, 586 N.E.2d 71). "In the absence of such a request, the court's failure to submit such offense does not constitute error" (CPL 300.50[2]; see also, People v. Veras, supra, at 712, 572 N.Y.S.2d 912; People v. Bovell, 154 A.D.2d 609, 546 N.Y.S.2d 436).
Defendant contends that his blood sample, taken when he was unconscious, was illegally obtained and should have been suppressed inasmuch as he was not formally under arrest at the time. That contention lacks merit (see, People v. Goodell, 79 N.Y.2d 869, 581 N.Y.S.2d 157, 589 N.E.2d 380, affg 164 A.D.2d 321, 565 N.Y.S.2d 929).
We reject defendant's contention that the court erred in admitting the testimony of persons who either were with defendant within one hour of the fatal automobile accident or observed his truck being driven in an erratic manner within minutes of that accident. That testimony is relevant to show defendant's subjective awareness of the risk, an essential element necessary to show that defendant acted recklessly under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, as charged in the first three counts of the indictment. That proof did not constitute evidence of a prior bad act or uncharged crime, so as to require a Ventimiglia hearing (see, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59). In any event, we conclude that the court effectively complied with the mandates of Ventimiglia and its progeny and properly admitted the challenged testimony. Moreover, any error in the admission of the challenged testimony is harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. There is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant but for the error (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).
Under the circumstances of this case, although the court violated CPL 310.30 by failing to give defense co...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Saxton
...206 A.D.2d 856, 856, 615 N.Y.S.2d 170 [1994], lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 906, 621 N.Y.S.2d 524, 645 N.E.2d 1224 [1994]; People v. Skinner, 203 A.D.2d 891, 891, 611 N.Y.S.2d 720 [1994], lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 832, 617 N.Y.S.2d 152, 641 N.E.2d 173 [1994] ). Further, as defendant's forensic accountant......
-
People v. Bowen
...that vehicular manslaughter be charged to the jury, the court did not err in failing to do so (see, CPL 300.50[2]; People v. Skinner, 203 A.D.2d 891, 611 N.Y.S.2d 720, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 832, 617 N.Y.S.2d 152, 641 N.E.2d 173). The court's Sandoval ruling does not constitute an abuse of di......
-
People v. Daniel
...information at issue did not involve prior bad acts or uncharged crimes, no Ventimiglia hearing was required (see, People v. Skinner, 203 A.D.2d 891, 611 N.Y.S.2d 720). There is no merit to the contention that the prosecutor improperly obtained telephone records, tax returns and court recor......
-
People v. Skinner
...152 617 N.Y.S.2d 152 84 N.Y.2d 832, 641 N.E.2d 173 People v. Skinner Court of Appeals of New York Aug 04, 1994 Ciparick, J. 203 A.D.2d 891, 611 N.Y.S.2d 720 App.Div. 4, Steuben Denied. ...