People v. 'Abdul-Malik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. 'Abdul-Malik

156 A.D.2d 1023, 549 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16237

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 20, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 1023 (People v. 'Abdul-Malik) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. 'Abdul-Malik, 156 A.D.2d 1023, 549 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Whether defendant was so intoxicated as to be unable to form the requisite intent to commit murder in the second degree presented an issue of fact (see, People v Danaher, 115 AD2d 905, 906; People v Shapiro, 96 AD2d 626, 627). The jury’s resolution of this issue in the [1024]*1024People’s favor was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence.

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct a hearing pursuant to CPL 730.30 (1) upon ascertaining through the presentence report that defendant had been hospitalized and diagnosed as having had a mental illness more than 20 years before the incident which resulted in the present charges against him (see, CPL 730.30; People v Palmer, 143 AD2d 469, 470-471, Iv denied 73 NY2d 858; People v Arnold, 113 AD2d 101). The facts or events presented to the trial court did not "raise a bona fide doubt” concerning defendant’s competency (People v Harris, 109 AD2d 351, 355, lv denied 66 NY2d 919; see, People v Arnold, supra, at 102). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — murder, second degree.) Present— Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Whether defendant was so intoxicated as to be unable to form the requisite intent to commit murder in the second degree presented an issue of fact (see, People v Danaher, 115 AD2d 905, 906; People v Shapiro, 96 AD2d 626, 627). The jury’s resolution of this issue in the [1024]*1024People’s favor was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence.

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct a hearing pursuant to CPL 730.30 (1) upon ascertaining through the presentence report that defendant had been hospitalized and diagnosed as having had a mental illness more than 20 years before the incident which resulted in the present charges against him (see, CPL 730.30; People v Palmer, 143 AD2d 469, 470-471, Iv denied 73 NY2d 858; People v Arnold, 113 AD2d 101). The facts or events presented to the trial court did not "raise a bona fide doubt” concerning defendant’s competency (People v Harris, 109 AD2d 351, 355, lv denied 66 NY2d 919; see, People v Arnold, supra, at 102). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — murder, second degree.) Present— Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 1023, 549 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-abdul-malik-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack