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. BRIAN K. HUTCHINGS, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, bribe receiving in the third degree (Penal Law § 200.10), and in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, a separate count of bribe receiving in the third degree (id.).
We reject defendant's contention in both appeal Nos. 1 and 2 that his conviction for bribe receiving in the third degree is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. In each case, the People presented legally sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that defendant accepted free or discounted goods or services from local companies “upon an agreement or understanding” that defendant's “opinion, judgment, action, decision or exercise of discretion as a public servant” would be influenced thereby (Penal Law § 200.10; see People v. Bac Tran, 80 N.Y.2d 170, 175–176, rearg. denied 81 N.Y.2d 784; People v. Harper, 145 A.D.2d 933, 933, affd 75 N.Y.2d 313; People v. Kitsos, 299 A.D.2d 291, 291–292, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 540; People v. Souvenir, 209 A.D.2d 455, 455–456, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 914). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).
Defendant failed to preserve his contention that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct (see CPL 470.05[2] ), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ). Defendant's contention that County Court should have taken judicial notice of 17 NYCRR 820.13 was abandoned by his express agreement to the court's instruction to the jury on the lawful stop of a vehicle (see People v. Graves, 85 N.Y.2d 1024, 1027; People v. Dennis, 55 AD3d 385, 385, lv denied 12 NY3d 783; see also CPL 470.05[2] ), which conveyed the appropriate legal standard to the jury in any event (see People v. Fields, 87 N.Y.2d 821, 823; People v. Rose, 67 AD3d 1447, 1448). We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: KA 12–01586
Decided: September 26, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)