PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Tylik WILLIAMS, a/k/a Victor Ramos, appellant.

Decided: December 22, 2003

GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Adam S. Charnoff of counsel), for respondent. Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel), for appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott, J.), rendered December 17, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant claims that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that a prosecution witness could be considered an accomplice as a matter of fact, whose testimony required corroboration.   However, the subject witness was, at most, an “accessory after the fact,” whose testimony needs no corroboration under CPL 60.22 (People v. Dygert, 229 A.D.2d 735, 736, 645 N.Y.S.2d 902;  People v. Sacco, 199 A.D.2d 288, 289, 604 N.Y.S.2d 971).   Accordingly, an accomplice corroboration charge would not have been warranted (see People v. Young, 235 A.D.2d 441, 442, 653 N.Y.S.2d 124;  People v. Brown, 221 A.D.2d 270, 271, 634 N.Y.S.2d 84;  People v. Montgomery, 178 A.D.2d 663, 578 N.Y.S.2d 224).

Copied to clipboard