Narrative Opinion Summary
The defendant's appeal from a Supreme Court judgment in Queens County, which convicted him of third-degree assault based on a jury verdict and imposed a sentence, has been affirmed. The court found no error in the decision not to provide a supplemental charge on the defense of justification in response to a jury note. Furthermore, the Supreme Court adequately addressed the jury's request for a readback of the four counts of the indictment and the applicable law, referencing relevant case law (People v Almodovar and People v Malloy). The defendant's other arguments were deemed without merit. Judges Ritter, Friedmann, Krausman, and McGinity concurred with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Jury Instructions and Supplemental Chargessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the trial court's decision not to issue a supplemental charge on the defense of justification, affirming that no error was made in this regard.
Reasoning: The court found no error in the decision not to provide a supplemental charge on the defense of justification in response to a jury note.
Jury Requests for Readback and Applicable Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court's response to the jury's request for a readback of the indictment counts and applicable law was deemed adequate, referencing relevant case law to support this action.
Reasoning: Furthermore, the Supreme Court adequately addressed the jury's request for a readback of the four counts of the indictment and the applicable law, referencing relevant case law (People v Almodovar and People v Malloy).
Review of Defendant's Arguments on Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determined that the defendant's additional arguments did not warrant reversal or modification of the conviction.
Reasoning: The defendant's other arguments were deemed without merit.