| People v Peels |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08777 [123 AD3d 597] |
| December 16, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Eric Peels, Appellant. |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Lisa A. Packard ofcounsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Patricia Curran of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered June 4,2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second and third degreesand criminal mischief, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to anaggregate term of six years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weightof the evidence (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing thejury's credibility determinations. The evidence overwhelmingly disproved defendant'sjustification defense as to the second-degree assault, because his aggressive behavior atthe time of the assault was completely incompatible with the legal requirements for aclaim of self-defense. With regard to the third-degree assault conviction involvinganother victim, the evidence supported the inference of substantial pain, therebyestablishing the physical injury element (see People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447-448 [2007]).
The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence that immediatelyafter the incident, defendant was taken to a hospital under arrest and in an extremelyagitated state, where he was "combative, argumentative and threatening staff" by kicking,spitting and flailing his limbs, and that he had to be restrained and sedated. There was asufficiently close nexus to warrant an inference that defendant's mental state andbehavior at the hospital reflected those conditions during the incident. Accordingly, thisevidence tended to corroborate the testimony of the People's witnesses and refutedefendant's defense of justification, and the People did not exceed the court's ruling.
Since one of the charges submitted to the jury was a hate crime based on the victim'ssexual orientation (see Penal Law § 485.05 [1]), the court alsoproperly exercised its discretion in admitting a portion of a recorded telephoneconversation in which defendant expressed a desire to harm witnesses against him andused an epithet relating to sexual orientation.
[*2] In any event, we find that any error regarding the evidence of defendant's behaviorat the hospital or the recorded call was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36NY2d 230 [1975]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels,Feinman and Gische, JJ.