Opinion
2011-11-29
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Serge RODRIGUEZ, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (A. Alexander Donn of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and William H. Branigan of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (A. Alexander Donn of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and William H. Branigan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Knopf, J.), rendered June 12, 2009, convicting him of assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, under the circumstances presented in this case, the trial court's responses to the jury's notes regarding the issue of intent, which were formulated after consulting with counsel, meaningfully addressed the jury's inquiries, contained no misstatements of the law, and did not unfairly prejudice the defendant ( see People v. Steinberg, 79 N.Y.2d 673, 684–685, 584 N.Y.S.2d 770, 595 N.E.2d 845; People v. Greene, 87 A.D.3d 551, 928 N.Y.S.2d 74; People v. Benard, 69 A.D.3d 952, 953, 895 N.Y.S.2d 133; People v. Fair, 308 A.D.2d 597, 597–598, 765 N.Y.S.2d 514). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in its responses to the jury's notes and inquiries.