People v Wright

Annotate this Case
People v Wright 2012 NY Slip Op 09171 Decided on December 27, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 27, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark, JJ.
8901 3696/08

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Solomon Wright, Defendant-Appellant.




Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (David Crow
of counsel), and White & Case LLP, New York (Benjamin
Rose and Alan Schindler of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Britta
Gilmore of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered June 23, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict finding defendant guilty of two counts of assault in the first degree was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]; Penal Law § 120.10[1], [2]). The evidence demonstrated that the wound the victim sustained constituted "serious disfigurement" (People v McKinnon, 15 NY3d 311, 315-316 [2010]).

While defendant raises a founded argument that certain comments in the prosecutor's voir dire and opening and closing statements were improper in that they tended to shift the burden of proof, it is unpreserved (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-20 [1995]). We decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that any improprieties in the statements of the prosecutor constituted harmless error in light of the evidence of guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 27, 2012

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.