From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. DiGuglielmo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 16, 1999
258 A.D.2d 591 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

February 16, 1999

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find the defense of justification was disproved beyond a reasonable doubt ( see, People v. McManus, 67 N.Y.2d 541, 546-547). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15). Although the defendant claimed that he fired three times without warning because he reasonably believed that the victim was threatening his father with a baseball bat, the jury had ample basis to conclude otherwise. The victim was described as holding the bat in a defensive manner by the eyewitnesses to the fatal shooting, and at least one witness, a ten-year-old child, heard the victim screaming "No" and "Get away from me" right before the defendant shot him.

Evidence of the victim's quarrelsome or violent nature is only admissible to support a justification defense where the defendant is aware of that reputation ( see, Matter of Robert S., 52 N.Y.2d 1046; People v. Miller, 39 N.Y.2d 543; People v. Rodawald, 177 N.Y. 408). Accordingly, the trial court properly precluded the defense from introducing such evidence. Moreover, the court's justification charge with respect to defense of a third person, when viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed the proper standards to be applied ( see, People v. Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817; People v. Crouch, 239 A.D.2d 597).

Contrary to the defendant's present claims, the court's procedure for responding to requests from the jury was proper and did not constitute inherently prejudicial error requiring reversal ( see, People v. Cook, 85 N.Y.2d 928; People v. O'Rama, 78 N.Y.2d 270; People v. Heath, 234 A.D.2d 388). The trial court providently exercised its discretion in framing its responses to the jury's requests for supplemental instructions and testimonial readbacks ( see, People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 302, cert denied 459 U.S. 847).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. DiGuglielmo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 16, 1999
258 A.D.2d 591 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. DiGuglielmo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICHARD D…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 16, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 591 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
686 N.Y.S.2d 443

Citing Cases

Diguglielmo v. Smith

DiGuglielmo II, slip op. at 6. Two disinterested witnesses testified that when DiGuglielmo shot Campbell, the…

People v. Wilson

"A criminal defendant asserting a justification defense is allowed to introduce evidence of the victim's…