People v. Scruggs, 111 A.D.3d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Scruggs, 111 A.D.3d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Bohn (nyappdiv, 2025-10-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bohn (3×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, neither the People's pathologist nor the coroner should have been allowed to testify that the victim's manner of death was a homicide ( see People v Scruggs , 111 AD3d 966, 967 [2d Dept 2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1025 [2014]; compare People v Ramsaran , 154 AD3d 1051, 1055 [3d Dept 2017], lv denied 39 NY3d 1063 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Chinloy
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
It was also improper to allow the prosecutor to introduce extrinsic evidence to impeach that witness’s credibility when she denied being affiliated with a gang (see People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244 [1969]; People v Scruggs, 111 AD3d 966, 967 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Portes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Thus, contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel based upon defense counsel’s failure to object to the admission of the autopsy report, as counsel is not deemed ineffective for failing to make a motion or argument that had little or no chance of success (see People v Ennis, 11 NY3d 403, 415 [2008]; People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004]; People v Jackson, 111 AD3d 966, 969 [2014]; People v Gomez, 67 AD3d 927, 928 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Johnson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
In any event, any error was harmless because there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v Scruggs, 111 AD3d 966, 967 [2013]; People v Heath, 49 AD3d 970, 973 [2008]; People v James, 123 AD2d 644, 645 [1986]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Shantelle Scruggs
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 27, 2013.
111 A.D.3d 966
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), rendered June 17, 2009, convicting her of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support her conviction of murder in the second degree because the People failed to prove the element of intent to kill is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable[*967] to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Pickens, 60 AD3d 699, 701 [2009]; People v Tigner, 51 AD3d 1045 [2008]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant contends that the medical examiner improperly testified that the manner of death was a homicide. However, because the defendant failed to object to this testimony, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, any error in this regard was harmless because there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to the defendant’s conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]; People v Heath, 49 AD3d 970, 973 [2008]; People v James, 123 AD2d 644, 645 [1986]).

During the course of cross-examination of the defendant, the prosecutor improperly introduced extrinsic evidence of a prior bad act to impeach her credibility (see People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244 [1969], cert denied 396 US 846 [1969]). However, because there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to the defendant’s conviction, that error also was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d at 242).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Austin, J.E, Sgroi, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.