PEOPLE v. BRIGGS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Malik BRIGGS, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: January 23, 1997

Before WILLIAMS, J.P., and TOM, MAZZARELLI and ANDRIAS, JJ. Deirdre Waldron Power, for Respondent. Anthony L. Ricco, for Defendant-Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), rendered October 24, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 7 to 21 years, unanimously affirmed.

 Since the jury convicted defendant of the reduced charge of first-degree manslaughter, based on extreme emotional disturbance, defendant's argument that the court erred in refusing to charge first-degree manslaughter as a lesser included offense of second-degree murder is academic.   In any case, the trial court correctly concluded that there was no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant merely intended to cause serious physical injury to the decedent, but did not intend to kill him (People v. Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61, 63-64, 453 N.Y.S.2d 660, 439 N.E.2d 376).

 The trial court properly limited testimony from defendant's witnesses concerning their knowledge of the deceased's reputation for violence or specific acts of violence.   At that point in the trial, there was no evidence or offer of proof that defendant shared this knowledge (People v. Pizzaro, 184 A.D.2d 448, 449, 585 N.Y.S.2d 406, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 908, 588 N.Y.S.2d 834, 602 N.E.2d 242;  People v. Miller, 39 N.Y.2d 543, 384 N.Y.S.2d 741, 349 N.E.2d 841), and defendant sought no relief in this regard following his own testimony.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.