| People v Chandler |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02526 [94 AD3d 1155] |
| April 5, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MalcolmChandler, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Gerald A. Dwyer of counsel), forrespondent.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County(Giardino, J.), rendered September 9, 2008, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes ofassault in the second degree, resisting arrest and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motorvehicle in the second degree.
As a result of an incident in which defendant evaded police during a car chase and, afterabandoning the vehicle, fled from them on foot, thereby causing physical injury to a policeofficer, defendant was convicted after a jury trial of assault in the second degree, resisting arrestand aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree. He was thereaftersentenced, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate prison term of five years, with three yearsof postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that his conviction of assault in the seconddegree is against the weight of the evidence because the record does not support a finding that thepolice officer suffered a physical injury. The evidence at trial established that one of the policeofficers who chased defendant on foot fell headfirst to the ground as he scaled a fence andinjured his head and thumb. The officer was transported to the hospital, where he reported"[t]hrobbing pain" in both his head and hand, complained of significant pain and dizziness andwas given a dose of a narcotic pain medication used to treat moderate to severe pain. A [*2]physician at the hospital also noted swelling and decreased mobilityof the officer's thumb. Viewing this evidence in a neutral light, and giving deference to the jury'scredibility determinations, there was ample evidence from which the jury could reasonably inferthat the officer's injuries caused "more than slight or trivial pain" (People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445,447 [2007]; see Penal Law § 10.00 [9]; § 120.05 [3]).
We are similarly unpersuaded by his contention that the record does not support the jury'sfinding that the police officers were performing a lawful duty or making an authorized arrest atthe time of the incident and, therefore, his convictions of assault in the second degree andresisting arrest are against the weight of the evidence. The evidence at trial established that thepolice officers received a report of a stolen vehicle that included details such as make, model,color and license plate number. When the police officers identified the vehicle that defendant wasdriving as exactly matching the vehicle reported stolen, they unsuccessfully attempted to stopdefendant. After a brief car chase, defendant abandoned the vehicle while it was still moving andfled on foot, at which point the officers gave chase until defendant was apprehended.[FN*]Under these circumstances, the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant (see People vMaldonado, 86 NY2d 631, 635 [1995]), and the evidence could lead the jury to thenreasonably infer that the officers were engaged in a lawful duty and making an authorized arrestat the time of the injuries (see Penal Law § 120.05 [3]; § 205.30; People v Winchester, 14 AD3d939, 940-941 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 796 [2005]; compare People v Lindsey, 52 AD3d527 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 738 [2008]).
As for defendant's remaining contentions, County Court properly determined that defendantwas not permitted to cross-examine the injured officer regarding the details of his suspensionfrom work because the fact that accusations had been made against him was not permissibleimpeachment evidence (see People v Miller, 91 NY2d 372, 380 [1998]; People vAntonetty, 268 AD2d 254 [2000], lv denied 94 NY2d 945 [2000]). Any error by thecourt in refusing to permit defendant to cross-examine the injured officer regarding certainspecific acts of misconduct, which may have been permissible (see People v Daley, 9 AD3d 601,602 [2004]), was harmless because other witnesses also provided ample evidence of the officer'sinjuries and the events surrounding defendant's arrest (see People v Hasenflue, 252 AD2d829, 831 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 982 [1998]).
Finally, we are not convinced that the sentence imposed by County Court is harsh orexcessive.
Mercure, A.P.J., Rose, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.[*3]
Footnote *: Contrary to defendant'scontention, it is irrelevant that it was later discovered that the report was incorrect and the vehiclewas not, in fact, stolen.