People v Butler

Annotate this Case
People v Butler 2020 NY Slip Op 00092 Decided on January 7, 2020 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 7, 2020
Friedman, J.P., Webber, Singh, Moulton, JJ.
702/18 10716A 10716

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

v

Travis Butler, Defendant-Respondent.



Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Joshua P. Weiss of counsel), for appellant.

The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (Courtney S. Dixon of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert E. Torres, J.), entered on or about November 20, 2018, which, to the extent appealed from, dismissed 10 counts of the indictment upon inspection of the grand jury minutes, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion to dismiss denied, and the dismissed counts reinstated. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 7, 2019, which effectively granted reargument, and upon reargument, adhered to its original order, unanimously dismissed, as academic.

The grand jury testimony established, among other things, that after defendant and another man approached the victim, defendant cut the victim's forehead with a razor blade, the other man hit the victim in the back of the head with a hard object, and both men punched the victim. Immediately after the attack, the victim noticed that the cell phone he had used shortly before the attack was missing. Either directly or by way of reasonable circumstantial inferences, this evidence was sufficient to support an indictment for each of the robbery, larceny, weapon and assault-related charges that the court dismissed (see generally People v Swamp , 84 NY2d 725, 730 [1995]; People v Deegan , 69 NY2d 976, 979 [1987]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 7, 2020

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.