AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. DARRELL DOCKERY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

By objecting on a different ground than those raised on appeal, defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his contentions with respect to the court's supplemental acting in concert charge (see,People v. Karabinas, 63 N.Y.2d 871, cert denied 470 U.S. 1087), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review such claims, we would find that since the indictment charged both defendant and his codefendant with the crimes herein and since the evidence at trial supported an acting in concert charge, the court properly provided such a charge, which was a meaningful response to a note from the deliberating jury. There is no legal distinction between liability as a principal or accomplice (see, People v. Rivera, 84 N.Y.2d 766; People v. Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74, cert denied 442 U.S. 910). Furthermore, the People's opening and closing arguments did not limit their theory of prosecution (see, People v. Bess, 107 A.D.2d 844, 846), and the court's charge caused no prejudice to defendant in light of the nature of his defense, which was that both he and his codefendant were innocent.

Defendant's claim that the court should have granted his request for submission of a lesser included offense is unpreserved and abandoned, since, after the court tentatively agreed that such charge would be appropriate but expressed a desire to mull over the prosecutor's objections, there was no further discussion of the matter and defendant expressed no dissatisfaction with the charge (see, People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 280; People v. Lipton, 54 N.Y.2d 340, 351; People v. Pressley, 216 A.D.2d 202, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 800; compare, CPL 300.10; People v. Leisner, 73 N.Y.2d 140, 147-148). We decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review such claim, we would find that, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to defendant, no reasonable view thereof supported a finding that he committed the lesser, but not the greater offense (People v. Scarborough, 49 N.Y.2d 364).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. DOCKERY
(May 26, 2000)