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. Jamel BLOCKER, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D'Emic, J.), rendered November 6, 2003, convicting him of aggravated criminal contempt and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the prosecution failed to prove that the complainant sustained a “physical injury” within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9). Contrary to the People's contention, this issue is preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19-21, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919; People v. Baez, 13 A.D.3d 463, 464, 785 N.Y.S.2d 749). However, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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 support the jury's finding of physical injury. Specifically, the evidence established that the complainant's injuries included swelling around her left eye, a laceration on her right middle finger that required sutures, bruising on her right breast, swelling on her arms, and bleeding. Also, the evidence established that the complainant experienced severe and pervasive pain while in the ambulance, complained again of pain in the hospital, and was given prescription pain medication, including intravenous morphine. Such evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the complainant suffered “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]; see People v. Greene, 70 N.Y.2d 860, 523 N.Y.S.2d 458, 517 N.E.2d 1344; People v. Williams, 203 A.D.2d 608, 610 N.Y.S.2d 613; People v. Crews, 159 A.D.2d 630, 553 N.Y.S.2d 28; People v. Lancia, 150 A.D.2d 799, 542 N.Y.S.2d 228; cf. Matter of Philip A., 49 N.Y.2d 198, 424 N.Y.S.2d 418, 400 N.E.2d 358).
Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ).
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: November 21, 2005
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)