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. Joseph Colon, appellant.
Argued—March 24, 2026
DECISION & ORDER
Q/
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Susan Quirk, J.), rendered October 25, 2023, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of attempted murder in the second degree and related crimes for the nonfatal shooting of the complainant. At trial, in addition to testimonial evidence, the People submitted video evidence that clearly depicted the shooting, as well as the defendant's movements before and after the shooting. The defendant raised a justification defense, which was rejected by the jury.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in limiting his cross-examination of the complainant (see People v. Rouse, 34 NY3d 269, 275–276; People v. Smith, 27 NY3d 652, 659–662) and in allowing the prosecutor to ask questions of the defendant's character witnesses that improperly assumed the defendant's guilt of the crimes for which he was on trial (see People v. Lowery, 214 A.D.2d 684, 685; People v. Gandy, 152 A.D.2d 909; People v. Pryor, 70 A.D.2d 805, 806). Any error with regard to these determinations did not deprive the defendant of his fundamental right to a fair trial, and was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, since the proof of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming and there is no reasonable possibility that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237–238).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
CONNOLLY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2023–10448 (Ind.No. 73032 /21)
Decided: April 15, 2026
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)