You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THE DEFENDANT WITH THE INTENTIONAL KILLING...

ALTHOUGH THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THE DEFENDANT WITH THE INTENTIONAL KILLING OF SCOTT WRIGHT, THE JURY WAS TOLD IN ANSWER TO ITS QUESTION THAT IT COULD CONVICT THE DEFENDANT IF THEY FOUND DEFENDANT INTENDED TO KILL THE NEXT PERSON WHO CAME THROUGH THE DOOR, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE IDENTITY OF THAT PERSON; THE JURY INSTRUCTION WAS DEEMED PROPER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming defendant’s murder conviction, determined the People were not required to prove defendant intended to kill the victim named in the indictment (Wright ). Although the indictment charged defendant with the intentional murder of Wright, the jury wanted to know if they could convict if they concluded defendant simply intended to kill the next person who came through the door (who happened to be Wright). The judge answered the jury’s question in the affirmative and the Third Department held the jury was properly instructed:

As defendant argues, “a jury charge may not constructively amend an indictment by varying the theory of the prosecution” … . “However, not every fact mentioned in an indictment is essential to establish the defendant’s guilt of the crime charged, and thus it is not necessary in every case that the People prove all acts alleged in the indictment when the remaining acts alleged are sufficient to sustain a conviction” … . Significantly, the identity of the victim is not one of the elements of the crime of murder in the second degree … . Here, the People chose to go beyond the elements that they were required to prove to obtain a conviction both by asserting in the indictment that defendant specifically intended to shoot Wright and by making that argument at trial. Nonetheless, the jury was not required to accept this part of the People’s theory to convict defendant of murder in the second degree, so long as it found that the People had proven the elements of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we find that the instruction did not alter the prosecution’s theory … . …

… [W]e reject defendant’s contention that County Court’s supplemental instruction prejudiced defendant by introducing the new legal principle of mistake of fact. As defendant argues, the People made no arguments based on that principle during the trial. However, defendant’s theory of defense throughout the trial was that the gun went off accidentally and that defendant did not intend to shoot Wright or anyone else. This defense of accident would not have been altered or affected if the question whether defendant mistook Wright for someone else had been raised earlier; as previously noted, the identity of the victim is not an element of the crime of murder in the second degree. People v Lee, 2020 NY Slip Op 03049, Third Dept 5-28-20

 

You might also like
Townhouse Residents, Members of a Community Homeowners’ Association, Entered an Implied Contract to Pay a Proportionate Share of the Fees for Authorized and Necessary Services in Connection with the Maintenance of the Townhouse Facilities
TENNIS PRO WAS AN EMPLOYEE.
THE CARRIER WHICH HAD ISSUED A BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY COVERING THE INSURED’S FLATBED TRUCK WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM AN INJURY INCURRED WHILE UNLOADING A TRACTOR FROM THE FLATBED TRUCK; UNLOADING A TRUCK IS CONSIDERED OPERATION OF THE TRUCK UNDER VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (THIRD DEPT).
Religious Organization Vicariously Liable for Negligence of Volunteer Under Agency Theory
Defendant Could Properly Subpoena Documents Which May Support a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment in the Interest of Justice/There Was Evidence of a Policy Not to Prosecute Native Americans for Tax Law Violations Relating to Cigarettes
ELIMINATING THE LONGSTANDING PRACTICE OF REIMBURSING RETIREES’ MEDICARE PART B PREMIUMS IS AN ISSUE THAT MUST BE NEGOTIATED WITH CURRENT EMPLOYEES; PERB DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT). ​
UNDER THE CRITERIA OF THE FAIR PLAY ACT, WINDOW, GUTTER, SIDING INSTALLERS WERE EMPLOYEES, NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.
CLAIMANT, A HAIRCARE PRODUCT SALES REPRESENTATIVE, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PRODUCER OF THE HAIRCARE PRODUCTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BEST EVIDENCE RULE APPLIES TO VIDEO EVIDENCE AS WELL AS WRITINGS; ERROR IN FAILING... OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD MAY BE LIABLE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE...