From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Viruet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 1995
215 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

May 1, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction for conspiracy in the second degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends, among other things, that his conviction for conspiracy in the second degree was a repugnant verdict in light of his acquittal on the charge of intentional murder. Under the circumstances of this case, we agree.

"A determination of whether a verdict is repugnant is based solely on a review of the trial court's charge regardless of its accuracy" (People v Green, 71 N.Y.2d 1006, 1008, citing People v Hampton, 61 N.Y.2d 963, 964; People v Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 7), and "[t]he instructions to the jury will be examined only to determine whether the jury, as instructed, must have reached an inherently self-contradictory verdict" (People v Tucker, supra, at 8). Here, the trial court, when charging the jury on the conspiracy count, instructed the jury that it must be established that the defendant had the "conscious objective * * * to engage in or cause others to engage in conduct to effect the death of the victim", and that "it must be established that each defendant, himself, knowingly became a member of the conspiratorial agreement with the specific intention to cause the death of [the victim]". The court repeated the essence of these instructions in its supplemental charge to the jury, reiterating that it must have been the defendant's "conscious objective" and "specific intention" to cause the death of the victim.

By acquitting the defendant of the intentional murder count, but finding him guilty of depraved indifference murder and felony murder, the jury necessarily found that the defendant had brought about the death of the victim, but had not intended to do so. Thus, by acquitting the defendant of intentional murder, the jury negated an essential of the conspiracy count as charged by the trial court: the specific intent to cause the victim's death. Therefore, the defendant's conviction for conspiracy in the second degree was repugnant (see, People v Tucker, supra, at 6), and must be reversed.

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or, to the extent that any error may have occurred, harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Thompson, J.P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Viruet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 1995
215 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Viruet

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PAUL VIRUET, Appellant

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

Date published: May 1, 1995

Citations

215 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
626 N.Y.S.2d 248

Citing Cases

People v. Morales

ndant correctly contends on this application for a writ of error coram nobis that he was denied the effective…

People v. Henry

A determination of whether a verdict is repugnant is based solely on a review of the trial court's charge…