PEOPLE v. FAGAN (2000)

 We reject the contention of defendant that the conviction of criminally negligent homicide is based on legally insufficient evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   We likewise reject the contention that County Court erred in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial on the ground that defendant's suppressed statements were inadvertently provided to the jury.   The record does not establish whether the jury viewed the suppressed statements, and the court gave a curative instruction to dissipate any prejudice to defendant in the event that the jury viewed the statements (see generally, People v. Birdsall, 215 A.D.2d 878, 880, 627 N.Y.S.2d 118, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 840, 634 N.Y.S.2d 449, 658 N.E.2d 227, 88 N.Y.2d 933, 647 N.Y.S.2d 167, 670 N.E.2d 451;  People v. Richardson, 175 A.D.2d 143, 144, 572 N.Y.S.2d 33, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 831, 580 N.Y.S.2d 211, 588 N.E.2d 109).

 We further conclude that the court properly allowed a witness to give unsworn testimony (see, CPL 60.20[2] ).   Additionally, the court properly granted the prosecutor's request to charge criminally negligent homicide as a lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree because there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that defendant committed the lesser included offense but not the greater (see, People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943, 620 N.Y.S.2d 814, 644 N.E.2d 1370).

 In light of the fact that defendant's actions with a loaded weapon caused the death of a 14-year-old child, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for youthful offender status (see generally, People v. Rogler, 186 A.D.2d 1076, 590 N.Y.S.2d 803, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 766, 594 N.Y.S.2d 729, 610 N.E.2d 402).   Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: