From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Reese

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 21, 1991
171 A.D.2d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

March 21, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Marks, J.).


Defendant was convicted of fatally stabbing his former girlfriend outside of a bar on New Year's Eve. The altercation was observed by a witness from about thirty-five feet away, although the witness did not see a knife in the defendant's hands. The victim, upon reentering the bar, stated that "her old man" had stabbed her. The People's evidence established that defendant and the victim had had a long-standing, but recently estranged, romantic relationship. Although the victim did not die directly from the stab wounds, the stabbing necessitated surgery, and the removal of the victim's spleen. Medical evidence established that the surgery and resulting complications, including bronchial pneumonia, were the cause of death. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (and giving due deference to the jury's findings of credibility [People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; People v Mosley, 112 A.D.2d 812, affd 67 N.Y.2d 985]), defendant's guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by both direct and circumstantial evidence. Although medical evidence established that the victim suffered pre-existing cirrhosis of the liver, which might have contributed to the victim's susceptibility to post-surgery complications, defendant cannot on this basis be relieved of culpability (Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270).

Defendant has failed to preserve as a matter of law his challenge to the court's charge on causation (CPL 470.05; People v Creech, 60 N.Y.2d 895). We find no reason to review in the interest of justice. Nor do we find any infirmity in the court's summary of the evidence and theories of both parties, during this charge. (CPL 300.10; People v Culhane, 45 N.Y.2d 757, cert denied 439 U.S. 1047.)

Finally, addressing defendant's argument which is set forth in his pro se supplemental brief, there is no basis upon which we can conclude that defendant was deprived of meaningful representation (People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Ross, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Reese

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 21, 1991
171 A.D.2d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Reese

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROMER REESE, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 21, 1991

Citations

171 A.D.2d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
567 N.Y.S.2d 441

Citing Cases

Reese v. Greiner

On March 21, 1991, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed petitioner's judgment of conviction. People v.…

People v. Velasquez

05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to…