Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Laurence McKELVIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.), rendered September 7, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 12 1/212 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility. There was extensive evidence of defendant's guilt including, among other things, eyewitness testimony that defendant was one of the two men who shot the victim.
The court properly exercised its discretion when it denied defendant's mistrial motion, made during the court's jury charge after the court briefly referred to a matter not in evidence. The court immediately corrected its inadvertent error and gave a curative instruction that was sufficient to prevent any prejudice (see People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865, 866, 437 N.Y.S.2d 75, 418 N.E.2d 668 [1981] ).
Defendant's remaining contentions regarding the court's jury instructions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. In each instance the court's charge, viewed as a whole, conveyed the proper standards. The absence of objections by trial counsel did not deprive defendant of effective assistance, since nothing in the instructions at issue was constitutionally deficient or caused defendant any prejudice.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 29, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)