From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 16, 2000
273 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

June 16, 2000.

Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Contiguglia, J. — Aggravated Harassment of Employee by Inmate.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., PINE, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER AND KEHOE, JJ.


Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of two counts of aggravated harassment of an employee by an inmate (Penal Law § 240.32) arising out of his throwing urine and/or feces on two correction officers. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of 2 1/2 to 5 years and fined $5,000 on each count. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction ( see, People v. Taylor, 94 N.Y.2d 910 [decided Mar. 30, 2000]; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).

Defendant's contention that the People's expert witness was not properly qualified as an expert is not preserved for our review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Stabell, 270 A.D.2d 894 [decided Mar. 29, 2000]; People v. Highsmith, 254 A.D.2d 768, 769, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 983, 1033). In any event, there is no merit to that contention. The record establishes that the witness was qualified to provide opinion testimony ( see, People v. Stabell, supra).

Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court's charge on intent impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to defendant ( see, People v. McKenzie, 67 N.Y.2d 695, 697; People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467). In any event, the court properly instructed the jury that the presumption was permissive and did not shift the burden of proof to defendant ( see, People v. McKenzie, supra, at 696-697).

Because the two offenses were committed through a single act, the imposition of consecutive sentences of imprisonment and two fines was improper ( see, Penal Law § 70.25; § 80.15). Thus, we modify the judgment by providing that the sentences run concurrently and by vacating the fine imposed on the second count of the indictment ( see, People v. Taylor, 197 A.D.2d 858, 859).


Summaries of

People v. Mack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 16, 2000
273 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Mack

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DOCK MACK…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
711 N.Y.S.2d 806

Citing Cases

State v. Williams

t of an employee by an inmate (Penal Law § 240.32). We previously held this case, reserved decision and…

People v. Pascuzzi

According the appropriate "great weight" to the court's factual determinations and credibility assessments…