People v Muier (Robert)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Muier (Robert) 2016 NY Slip Op 50091(U) Decided on January 27, 2016 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 27, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570801/12

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, -

against

Robert Muier a/k/a Robert Maier, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered June 13, 2012, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted assault in the third degree and attempted criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered June 13, 2012, modified on the law, to vacate defendant's conviction for attempted criminal mischief in the fourth degree and to dismiss the count of the accusatory instrument relating thereto and, as modified, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of attempted assault in the third degree (see Penal Law §§ 110.00/120.00[1]) was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The trial court, as fact finder, reasonably could conclude that when defendant punched the complainant cab driver in the face, causing redness and swelling, he did so with intent to cause physical injury (see Penal Law 120.00[1]; Matter of Edward H., 61 AD3d 473, 473 [2009]; Matter of Marcel F., 233 AD2d 442, 442-443 [1996]).

We further find that the evidence was legally sufficient to disprove defendant's defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to defendant's contention, the complainant's credited testimony established that defendant's attack was not preceded by any conduct by the complainant — verbal or physical — that would support a reasonable belief that the use of physical force against defendant was imminent (see People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96, 114-115 [1986]). The victim's credited account of the incident was neither unreliable nor implausible and there was no reasonable view of the evidence upon which the factfinder could properly conclude that defendant's conduct was justified (see People v Petty, 7 NY3d 277, 284 [2006]).

However, the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of attempted criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00/145.00[1]), upon the theory that defendant intentionally damaged the victim's jacket during the altercation. An intent to injure a person does not satisfy the mens rea requirement of intent to damage property simply because property is damaged in the course of the attack (see People v Washington, 18 NY2d 366 [1966]). Since the evidence reveals only an intent directed toward the victim, the People failed to prove that [*2]defendant intended to damage the jacket (see People v Bryant, 85 AD2d 575, 576 [1981]). We modify the judgment accordingly.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's request for a missing witness charge with respect to another cab driver present during the incident. There is no indication that the witness was under the People's control for purposes of a missing witness charge (see People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 428-429 [1986]; People v Broadhead, 36 AD3d 423, 424 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 919 [2007]; People v McLean, 17 AD3d 1150, 1151 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 791 [2005]; People v Archie, 167 AD2d 925, 926 [1990], lv denied 77 NY2d 991 [1991]). Furthermore, his testimony would have been cumulative of the other evidence. In any event, any error in failing to give a missing witness charge was harmless in the context of this nonjury trial and given the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see People v Hall, 18 NY3d 122 [2011]; People v McFarlane, 189 AD2d 785, 785 [1993]).


THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 27, 2016

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.