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. Demetrius WILLIAMS, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered May 31, 2005, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there is no reasonable view of the evidence that would have permitted the jury to find that the affirmative defense to the charge of felony murder (see Penal Law § 125.25[3] ) was established by a preponderance of the evidence (see People v. Dillon, 30 A.D.3d 1135, 1136, 815 N.Y.S.2d 574; People v. McNeely, 222 A.D.2d 611, 636 N.Y.S.2d 638). Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying his request for such a charge (see People v. Butts, 72 N.Y.2d 746, 748-750, 536 N.Y.S.2d 730, 533 N.E.2d 660; People v. Tucker, 33 A.D.3d 635, 822 N.Y.S.2d 126; People v. Caicedo, 234 A.D.2d 379, 651 N.Y.S.2d 110).
The defendant contends that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial by testimony that improperly suggested he intimidated a prosecution witness and a potential witness. However, any error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the alleged error contributed to his conviction (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; People v. Williams, 56 A.D.3d 700, 868 N.Y.S.2d 90 [Appellate Division Docket No. 2005-05993, decided herewith] ).
The contention raised in Point I of the defendant's supplemental pro se brief is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit, and the contention raised in Point II of the defendant's supplemental pro se brief is without merit.
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 18, 2008
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)