| People v Bradley |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03692 [72 AD3d 1628] |
| April 30, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v FelderBradley, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy A. Gilligan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R. Schwartz, A.J.), renderedAugust 25, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the seconddegree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of assault inthe second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]), defendant contends that County Court erredin refusing to redact medical records concerning the victim's shoulder injury before admitting therecords in evidence. The disputed excerpts of the records state that the victim had beendiagnosed with a fracture of his "right shoulder/scapula" and, because the records were directlyrelated to the diagnosis and treatment of the victim, they were admissible without redaction(see People v Harris, 132 AD2d 940, 941 [1987]). Defendant's objections to theadmissibility of the disputed excerpts "go to the weight [there]of . . . and not to[their] admissibility" (People v Davis, 95 AD2d 837, 838 [1983]). Defendant furthercontends that, even in the absence of any error in the admission of the medical records, the courterred in denying his request for a charge on causation, i.e., that the jury should have beeninstructed that it could consider evidence regarding the victim's shoulder injury only if it foundthat defendant caused that injury. We reject that contention, in view of our conclusion that therewas no issue at trial with respect to the causation of the victim's shoulder injury. The victimtestified that defendant caused his shoulder injury and that, when he was taken to the hospital, hewas treated for injuries to his head and shoulder. In addition, the victim testified that he had nohead or shoulder problems before he was struck with the bat.
Finally, defendant contends that he was entitled to an expanded circumstantial evidencecharge. We agree with the People that defendant's statements to the victim, immediately prior toand after the incident, constitute admissions of guilt and thus that a circumstantial evidencecharge was not warranted (see People v Pagan, 159 AD2d 6 [1990], lv denied 76NY2d 895 [1990]; see also People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879 [1978]), let alone anexpanded charge. We note in any event that a witness testified that she heard a[*2]"clunk" and observed defendant standing over the victim while thevictim was holding his head. She further testified that, several moments later, the victim ran bythe witness and was bleeding from his head. Thus, there was other direct evidence of defendant'sguilt such that a circumstantial evidence charge was not warranted (cf. People v Silva, 69NY2d 858, 859 [1987]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.