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. Michael WILLIAMS, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered March 25, 2003, convicting him of gang assault 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 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 establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt of gang assault in the second degree (see Penal Law § 120.06). The jury could have reasonably inferred that the defendant and the codefendant were in a position to render immediate assistance to their accomplice and, therefore, posed a sufficient threat of additional violence so as to satisfy the aggravating element necessary to sustain the conviction of gang assault in the second degree (see People v. Marquez, 298 A.D.2d 407, 408, 751 N.Y.S.2d 251; cf. People v. Hedgeman, 70 N.Y.2d 533, 523 N.Y.S.2d 46, 517 N.E.2d 858; People v. Carr-El, 287 A.D.2d 731, 732, 732 N.Y.S.2d 256, affd. 99 N.Y.2d 546, 754 N.Y.S.2d 198, 784 N.E.2d 71). 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] ).
The defendant's arguments regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summation are partially unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2] ). In any event, any prejudice that may have resulted from the challenged remarks was alleviated when the trial court sustained the defendant's objections and provided curative instructions to the jury (see People v. Burrell, 178 A.D.2d 422, 577 N.Y.S.2d 289). To the extent that any alleged inappropriate remark remained unaddressed, it was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see People v. Stith, 291 A.D.2d 576, 737 N.Y.S.2d 881).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
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 10, 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)