People v. White

Decision Date27 October 2009
Docket Number2884/07.,1294.
CitationPeople v. White, 66 A.D.3d 585, 888 N.Y.S.2d 15, 2009 NY Slip Op 7683 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DERRICK WHITE, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

The court properly declined to submit third-degree assault as a lesser included offense, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that the victim's physical injuries were caused by something other than being struck with a glass bottle that shattered in his face (seePeople v Joseph,23 AD3d 174, 175[2005], lv denied6 NY3d 777[2006]).The location and extent of the injuries, as established by photographs, were incompatible with defendant's alternate theories of causation, and we reject defendant's argument to the contrary.Defendant failed to preserve his additional argument that the court's submission to the jury of certain other counts of the indictment required the further submission of third-degree assault as a lesser included offense, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.

Defendant did not preserve his challenges to the court's justification charge, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits.The court was not required to instruct the jury on the justifiable use of nondeadly force because, even when considered in the light most favorable to defendant, there was no reasonable view of the evidence that he used anything less than "force which, under the circumstances in which it [was] used, [was] readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury"(Penal Law § 10.00 [11]) when he threw the bottle at the victim's face (see generallyPeople v Bulla,13 AD3d 118[2004], lv denied4 NY3d 762[2005]).Moreover, in order to convict defendant of second-degree assault by means of a dangerous instrument (seePenal Law § 120.05 [2]), the jury essentially had to find that he used deadly force (seePeople v Garcia,59 AD3d 211[2009], lv denied12 NY3d 853[2009];People v Mickens,219 AD2d 543[1995], lv denied87 NY2d 904[1995]).Furthermore, the court's instructions adequately conveyed the principle that if the jury found that defendant was not guilty of a greater charge on the basis of justification, it was not to consider any lesser counts (seePeople v Palmer,34 AD3d 701, 703[2006], lv...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
10 cases
  • Simpson v. Bell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 27 d5 Agosto d5 2021
    ...defense." 195 A.D.3d 447, 448, 147 N.Y.S.3d 581 (1st Dep't 2021) (internal quotations omitted); see also People v. White , 66 A.D.3d 585, 586, 888 N.Y.S.2d 15 (1st Dep't 2009), leave denied 14 N.Y.3d 807, 899 N.Y.S.2d 141, 925 N.E.2d 945 (2010) ; Love v. Smith , 2009 WL 2422384, at *7 (E.D.......
  • People v. Wah
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 23 d2 Abril d2 2019
    ...1195, 1196–1197, 807 N.Y.S.2d 765 [4th Dept. 2005], affd 7 N.Y.3d 874, 826 N.Y.S.2d 174, 859 N.E.2d 913 [2006] ; People v. White , 66 A.D.3d 585, 888 N.Y.S.2d 15 [1st Dept. 2009], lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 807, 899 N.Y.S.2d 141, 925 N.E.2d 945 [2010] ). The court carefully instructed the jury tha......
  • People v. Mason
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 14 d3 Outubro d3 2015
    ...force when he struck the complainant in the face with the glass bottle (see Penal Law §§ 10.00[11], 35.15[2] ; People v. White, 66 A.D.3d 585, 586, 888 N.Y.S.2d 15 ; People v. Garcia, 59 A.D.3d 211, 212, 873 N.Y.S.2d 52 ; People v. Saenz, 27 A.D.3d 379, 380, 811 N.Y.S.2d 395 ; cf. People v.......
  • People v. Vega
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 14 d2 Novembro d2 2017
    ...Penal Law § 10.00[11],[13] ), the latter finding would necessarily imply that defendant used deadly force (see People v. White, 66 A.D.3d 585, 586, 888 N.Y.S.2d 15 [1st Dept.2009], lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 807, 899 N.Y.S.2d 141, 925 N.E.2d 945 [2010] ). Thus, the relevant factual issue was subm......
  • Get Started for Free