People v. Carter, 53 N.Y.2d 695 (1981)
A conviction for assault in the third degree requires proof of physical injury, which can be established through the victim’s testimony and corroborating medical evidence, and a defendant is not entitled to a lesser included offense charge unless there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support it.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for assault in the third degree. The charges stemmed from an altercation in a shopping center parking lot between the defendant, a young dental surgeon, and the complainant, an elderly man. The court found that the complainant’s testimony, supported by medical evidence, sufficiently established physical injury. The court also upheld the trial court’s refusal to charge harassment as a lesser included offense, as the defendant’s version of events did not reasonably support a finding of harassment instead of assault.
Facts
The incident occurred in a Manhasset shopping center parking area. The complainant, an 82-year-old man, advised the defendant, a 28-year-old dental surgeon, that he was parked in a restricted zone. According to the complainant, the defendant then approached him while he was sitting in his car, smashed the car door against his foot as he tried to exit, struck him in the ribs after he got out of the car, and knocked him to the ground. The complainant testified to sustaining a concussion, lacerations, severe bruises, and a severely bruised and swollen foot. Two physicians testified, confirming the complainant’s injuries and pain, which persisted for three to five weeks. The defendant presented a substantially different version of the incident.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted of assault in the third degree after a jury trial. He appealed to the Appellate Term, which affirmed the conviction. He then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a conviction for assault in the third degree.
2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to charge harassment as a lesser included offense.
Holding
1. Yes, because the complainant’s testimony and corroborating medical evidence established the element of physical injury required for assault in the third degree.
2. No, because the defendant’s version of the incident did not provide a reasonable basis for the jury to find harassment instead of assault.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found that the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that the defendant committed assault in the third degree. The court relied on the complainant’s detailed testimony of the incident and the corroborating testimony of the two physicians who treated him. This evidence established that the complainant suffered physical injury as a result of the defendant’s actions, satisfying the requirements of Penal Law § 120.00(1). Regarding the lesser included offense, the court cited People v. Glover, 57 NY2d 61, and People v. Moyer, 27 NY2d 252, emphasizing that a defendant is only entitled to a charge on a lesser included offense if there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater. Here, the defendant’s version of events, while potentially supporting a factual finding of harassment, did not preclude a finding of assault. Therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing to charge harassment as a lesser included offense. The court implicitly emphasized the jury’s role in assessing witness credibility and resolving conflicting factual accounts.