From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 24, 1992
182 A.D.2d 1086 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

April 24, 1992

Appeal from the Erie County Court, D'Amico, J.

Present — Boomer, J.P., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In the absence of evidence to support an inference that James Tyson took part in the preparation or perpetration of the bombing, or that he counseled, induced or encouraged it (CPL 60.22; see, People v Wheatman, 31 N.Y.2d 12, cert denied sub nom. Marcus v New York, 409 U.S. 1027), the trial court properly denied defendant's request to have the jury determine whether Tyson was an accomplice (see, People v Tucker, 72 N.Y.2d 849). Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. His counsel's conduct "might well have been pursued by a reasonably competent attorney" (People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799). Defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the People's loss of several photographs is without merit. The photographs were not relevant to any possible defense. In view of the heinous nature of the crime, we do not find the sentence imposed to be harsh and excessive. The remaining issues raised by defendant were not preserved and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice.


Summaries of

People v. Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 24, 1992
182 A.D.2d 1086 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Jackson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LEE JACKSON, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 24, 1992

Citations

182 A.D.2d 1086 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

People v. Weeks

Defendant contends that a prosecution witness was an accomplice as a matter of law, thus requiring an…

People v. Manzi

In any event, that contention is also without merit. "[T]here is no evidence from which it can be reasonably…