People v. TaylorPeople v. Taylor
Joseph Fritz picked up defendant‘s girlfriend and brought her to a concert at the Northern Lights musiс hall in the Town of Clifton Park, Saratoga County. Later that evening, defendant arrived there to meet up with his girlfriend. A few hours later, Fritz and defendant had an altercation in the parking lot, during which defendаnt‘s pocket knife caused a large laceration across Fritz‘s abdomen.
The assault conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. To establish assault in the second degree, the People had to prove that defendant, “[w]ith intent to cause physical injury to another рerson, . . . cause[d] such injury to such person . . . by means of . . . a dangerous instrument” (
As to the weight of the evidence, the witnesses prеsented several versions of the altercation. Fritz testified that defendant appeared irritated all night but would not say why. When Fritz followed defendant‘s girlfriend to the parking lot, defendant fol
Defendant testified that Fritz had repeatedly touched him inside the bаr, despite defendant asking him not to. Fritz glared at defendant, yelled at him, put his fingers in defendant‘s face and threatened to beat up both defendant and his brother. Defendant walked away. Outside, defendant started to approach his girlfriend, but then decided to give her some space. When he saw Fritz approaching her, he headed toward them. Fritz shouted at defendant, calling him nаmes and telling defendant that his relationship with his girlfriend was done. Defendant testified that Fritz shoved him and asked if he wanted to fight. After defendant told Fritz to back off, defendant walked away, but Fritz jumped on defеndant‘s back and knocked him to the ground. Defendant testified that he was terrified because his shoulder regularly dislocated, causing intense pain and rendering the arm unusable, and he was afraid that he would be unable to defend himself and could be permanently injured. To protect himself, he pushed Fritz off his back with his left arm, opened his pocket knife with his right hand and spun around to show Fritz the knife. At thе same time, Fritz lunged at defendant. Defendant did not realize that the knife made contact and, as soon as Fritz backed away, defendant left the scene. When he heard sirens, he panicked and threw his knife in the woods. Defendant testified that he did not stab or thrust the knife, but only meant to scare Fritz away.
Although defendant‘s statements about being pushed down by Fritz are supported by grass and mud stains оn his pants and shoes, and scrapes on his wrist and knee, those markings also could have occurred if he knelt down to stab Fritz, which would be consistent with the cabdriver‘s testimony. Defendant
The conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree is based on legally sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. As charged to the jury, that count required proof that defendant knowingly possessed а dangerous knife with intent to use it unlawfully against another person (see
County Court properly denied defendаnt‘s request to provide the jury with a charge of justification by means of ordinary physical force. The court did charge the jury regarding self-defense by means of deadly physical force. Althоugh a court may give both charges if the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant, supports them (see People v Powell, 101 AD3d 1369, 1371-1372 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]; People v Ogodor, 207 AD2d 461, 462 [1994]), the charge should be limited to justification based on deadly physical fоrce “if it may be held, as a matter of law, that the physical force used by the defendant was, in fact, ‘deadly,’ that is, ‘readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury’ ” (People v Jones, 148 AD2d 547, 549 [1989], quoting
County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant‘s request for an expert witness, as the court found that the subject matter was within the knowledge of typical jurors, who could use their own experience, observations and cоmmon sense to deduce whether defendant acted in self-defense (see People v Cronin, 60 NY2d 430, 433 [1983]; cf. People v De Sarno, 121 AD2d 651, 654 [1986], lv denied 68 NY2d 769 [1986]). Further, inasmuch as the scope and extent of cross-examination is within the trial court‘s discretion, we do not find that County Court abused its discretion in limiting defendant‘s cross-examination of Fritz, after Fritz had acknowledged his prior convictions, by precluding questions concerning the underlying facts relating to one of those prior crimes (see People v Mothon, 284 AD2d at 570).
While erroneous information should be redacted from a PSI (see People v Freeman, 67 AD3d 1202, 1202 [2009]), County Court did not err in denying redaction and instead ordering that the sentencing minutes accompany the PSI. The allegedly erroneous portions generally constituted facts that wеre disputed at trial—such as the part of the PSI that addressed the victim‘s statement and indicated that it was Fritz‘s version of events—rather than concrete and indisputable facts. Accordingly, the сourt did not abuse its discretion in refusing to redact portions of the PSI, but adequately addressed the problem by appending the sentencing minutes so that anyone reviewing the PSI in the future would also sеe defendant‘s arguments regarding the opinions and facts that he challenged (see People v Thomas, 2 AD3d 982, 984 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 602 [2004]). Under the circumstances, including the injury that defendant inflicted upon Fritz, the sentence was not harsh or excessivе.
Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and matter remitted to the County Court of Saratoga County for further proceedings pursuant to