People v. McInnis
Opinion of the Court
We agree with the defendant’s contention that his conviction of manslaughter in the second degree should be reversed because the court erred in failing to charge criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense of murder in the second degree. A reasonable view of the evidence would support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser crime and not the greater (see, People v Green, 56 NY2d 427). The People argue that the defendant’s request for a charge on criminally negligent homicide was untimely. Although a request for a charge on a lesser-included offense should be made before summations (see, People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74, cert denied 442 US 910; CPL 300.10 [4]), it cannot be rejected as untimely where, as here, it is made before the jury retires to deliberate (see, People v Noguera, 102 AD2d 775; People v Hanley, 87 AD2d 850; People v Balay, 49 AD2d 838, cert denied 425 US 942; CPL 300.50 [1]). Moreover, there was no showing that the request was made in bad faith. Since the defendant was acquitted under the sole count of murder in the second degree submitted to the jury, and no lesser-included offenses were charged in the indictment, the first count in the indictment, charging murder in the second degree, must be dismissed without prejudice to the People to re-present any appropriate charges to the Grand Jury (see, People v Beslanovics, 57 NY2d 726, supra).
The defendant was charged in the indictment with three
Finally, since the conviction for manslaughter in the second degree is reversed and the sentence thereon vacated, we need not reach the issue of whether the court properly imposed consecutive sentences on the convictions for possession of a weapon and manslaughter. Nevertheless, we note that it is well settled that a court may not impose consecutive sentences where all of the counts in a multi-count indictment arise out of the same act (see, People v Kuey, 155 AD2d 481; People v Ellis, 139 AD2d 662). The evidence elicited at the trial, and the People’s arguments at sentencing, establish that these offenses arose out of the same act. Bracken, J. P., Harwood, Lawrence and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.