People v Reid (Shawn)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Reid (Shawn) 2018 NY Slip Op 50348(U) Decided on March 19, 2018 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 19, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Ling-Cohan, J.P., Gonzalez, Cooper, JJ.
570637/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Shawn Reid, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Abena Darkeh, J.), rendered June 24, 2016, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Abena Darkeh, J.), rendered June 24, 2016, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument - comprising the misdemeanor complaint and domestic incident report signed by the arresting officer and the complainant - was not jurisdictionally defective. It charged all the elements of attempted third-degree assault (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00[1]). Defendant's intent to cause physical injury could be readily inferred from allegations that, during a domestic dispute, defendant "choked," "hit" and "punch[ed]" complainant in the left and right eye, causing "bruising and swelling," and that complainant "observed the defendant strike her with a closed fist [and] place both hands around her neck and apply pressure" (see Penal Law 120.00[1]; Matter of Edward H., 61 AD3d 473 [2009]). Contrary to defendant's contention, the absence of "threatening language" and the fact that both parties were drinking and arguing did not negate a finding that he acted with the requisite injurious intent (see People v Waite, 2002 NY Slip Op 50260[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 540 [2002]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 19, 2018

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.