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. Nicholas BARNES, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered January 6, 1997, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the defendant's conviction of burglary in the first degree to burglary in the second degree, and vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing.
The defendant broke into a dwelling and, while inside, was confronted by the landlords, a husband and wife. As the wife attempted to assist her husband, who was engaged in a physical struggle with the defendant, the defendant bit and twisted her arm. At trial, the wife testified that her arm hurt her so much that she was unable to work for three weeks. There was no other evidence to substantiate her injuries.
While the question of whether the element of physical injury has been established is generally one for the trier of fact, “there is an objective level * * * below which the question is one of law” (Matter of Philip A., 49 N.Y.2d 198, 200, 424 N.Y.S.2d 418, 400 N.E.2d 358). The People have failed to present legally sufficient evidence to reach that objective level (see, People v. Cicciari, 90 A.D.2d 853, 456 N.Y.S.2d 103). Accordingly, the conviction for burglary in the first degree should be reduced to the lesser-included offense of burglary in the second degree, which lesser crime was proven at trial (see, People v. Cicciari, supra).
The defendant's contention that he was prejudiced by certain fleeting remarks in the People's summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9). In any event, the court sustained all defense objections to the remarks, admonishing the prosecutor to “wind up” her summation (see, People v. Jackson, 199 A.D.2d 535, 605 N.Y.S.2d 409).
MEMORANDUM BY 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.
Decided: May 03, 1999
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)