From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Robinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 1995
220 A.D.2d 465 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

October 2, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends on appeal that the court committed reversible error when it repeatedly instructed the jury on his failure to testify, using language that exceeded the words of the statute (see, CPL 300.10; People v. McLucas, 15 N.Y.2d 167; People v. Mannery, 151 A.D.2d 697). However, this issue is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant's failure to object after each of the alleged improprieties deprived the court of an opportunity to respond (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, there was no reasonable possibility that the alleged error contributed to the defendant's conviction. Thus, any alleged error was harmless (see, People v McPherson, 182 A.D.2d 714; People v. Kimbrough, 134 A.D.2d 618).

There is no merit to the defendant's claim that the evidence of physical injury was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of robbery in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we are satisfied that the evidence of "substantial pain" necessary to establish physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) was legally sufficient. The victim testified that the defendant kicked and struck her while trying to steal her purse. As a result of the confrontation, the victim was unable to open her mouth properly for a week and still experienced pain in her back over a year after the incident. Based on these facts, the determination of the jury should not be disturbed (see, People v Sloan, 202 A.D.2d 525; People v. Dazi, 195 A.D.2d 571; People v Lawson, 184 A.D.2d 588; People v. Brooks, 155 A.D.2d 680; People v Talibon, 138 A.D.2d 426, 427).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit (see, People v. Green, 216 A.D.2d 581; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Robinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 1995
220 A.D.2d 465 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Robinson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MURPHY ROBINSON…

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

Date published: Oct 2, 1995

Citations

220 A.D.2d 465 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
632 N.Y.S.2d 158

Citing Cases

People v. March

05; People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865). The defendant's argument that the court erred in delivering a "no…

People v. Dandridge

view his contention that the court impermissibly restricted the scope of voir dire questioning ( see e.g.…