People v. Starling
Opinion of the Court
Judgment unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, in accordance with the following memorandum: We reject defendant’s argument that the evidence of “physical injury” (Penal Law, § 10.00, subd 9) inflicted on the complainant police officer was insufficient to support defendant’s conviction for assault, second degree (Penal Law, § 120)05, subd 3). The testimony and a photograph admitted into evidence established that the blow inflicted on the officer resulted in a bleeding laceration approximately one inch long under his eye requiring medical attention. The officer testified that the blow “stunned” him, caused him to experience “substantial pain”, and resulted in his missing five days of work. This case is distinguishable from Matter of Philip A. (49 NY2d 198), relied upon by defendant, in which the injury complained of was a slap which caused pain (the degree of which was not spelled out) and a red mark but no laceration and no swelling. H The indictment charged two crimes (assault, second degree, and resisting arrest). Defense counsel requested that another count of resisting arrest be submitted as a lesser included offense but as a separate crime, and the jury returned guilty verdicts for all three crimes (assault, second degree, and two counts of resisting
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.