People v. McKnightPeople v. McKnight
—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the motion court erred in denying his motion to sever counts one through three of the indictment from counts four through eight because different victims were involved (see, CPL 200.20 [3] [a], [b]). Defendant failed to establish that there was “ [substantially more proof on one or more [of the] joinable offenses than on others and there [was] a substantial likelihood that the jury would be unable to consider separately the
We reject the further contention of defendant that the trial court erred in denying his request to charge the jury on the affirmative defense of renunciation (see, Penal Law § 40.10). We conclude that “under no reasonable view of the evidence could the jury have found that defendant established by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime was avoided by his abandonment of the criminal effort ‘under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal purpose’ ” (People v Taylor,
Finally, we reject the contention of defendant that his conviction of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [6]) and assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]) is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict convicting him of those crimes is against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley,