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, etc., Respondent, v. Tony ORTIZ, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered April 17, 2000, convicting him of assault in the third degree and criminal trespass in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of assault in the third degree because the People failed to establish that the complainant sustained a physical injury (see, Penal Law § 120.00). However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant sustained a physical injury, as she experienced pain and had limited motion in her right arm for over a year. Moreover, her right arm was in a sling for approximately a month and a half (see, People v. Ayuso, 204 A.D.2d 472, 614 N.Y.S.2d 162; Matter of Clem F., 198 A.D.2d 223, 224, 603 N.Y.S.2d 507). This injury also prevented her from performing certain daily activities. Furthermore, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5] ).
Moreover, the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court committed reversible error by permitting the People to introduce evidence of prior violent incidents involving the complainant and the defendant is meritless. The evidence was properly admitted to demonstrate the defendant's intent and motive to cause physical injury to the complainant (see, People v. Howard, 285 A.D.2d 560, 728 N.Y.S.2d 492, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 940, 733 N.Y.S.2d 380, 759 N.E.2d 379), as well as to provide the jury with background information regarding the nature of their relationship (see, People v. Shorey, 172 A.D.2d 634, 568 N.Y.S.2d 436). In light of the Supreme Court's limiting instruction, the probative value of this evidence was outweighed by any prejudicial effect (see, People v. Foy, 176 A.D.2d 893, 575 N.Y.S.2d 357).
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: January 14, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)