From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mu-Min

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 26, 1991
172 A.D.2d 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 26, 1991

Appeal from the Cattaraugus County Court, Kelly, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Pine, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a conviction, following a bench trial, of criminal mischief in the third degree for intentionally causing damage to property in an isolation cell at the Cattaraugus County Jail. We conclude that the evidence, although circumstantial, was sufficient to establish that defendant intentionally caused the damage (see, People v. Dowd, 115 A.D.2d 557, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 761). Although defendant testified and denied that he intentionally damaged the cell, this merely raised an issue of credibility which the court, sitting as trier of the facts, could properly resolve in favor of the People. In addition, the testimony of the Supervisor of Buildings and Grounds for Cattaraugus County that the cost of the repairs was $600 was sufficient to establish that the value of the damaged property exceeded $250 (see, People v. Woodard, 148 A.D.2d 997, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 749). Thus, the evidence was legally sufficient to support defendant's conviction for criminal mischief in the third degree and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant access to his jail records. Although defendant's confidential disciplinary records might be discoverable upon a proper showing (cf., People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 548), defendant failed to make a specific factual showing that such documents contained any information which was relevant and material to his defense. Moreover, defense counsel never requested the court to examine the records in camera to determine whether they contained anything of an exculpatory or evidentiary nature.

The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence of two to four years, to be served consecutively to any sentence defendant was then serving.


Summaries of

People v. Mu-Min

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 26, 1991
172 A.D.2d 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Mu-Min

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ABDULLAH MU-MIN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Apr 26, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
569 N.Y.S.2d 280

Citing Cases

People v. Miranda

We reject that contention. The People presented the testimony of a witness who repaired the damage to the…

People v. Dixon

In any event, the complainant was not simply a lay witness, but was treated as an expert. Therefore his…