People v. Acevedo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Acevedo

117 A.D.2d 813, 499 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53085

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 117 A.D.2d 813 (People v. Acevedo) 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. Acevedo, 117 A.D.2d 813, 499 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53085 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered April 21, 1977, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court erred in refusing his request to instruct the jury as to the defense of justification. We disagree. In determining whether a justification charge is warranted, the evidence at trial must be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, and if that evidence sufficiently supports the asserted defense the court should instruct the jury as to that defense and must do so upon request (People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299, 301; People v Ruiz, 96 AD2d 845). However, when no reasonable view of the evidence would [814]*814support a finding of justification, then the court is under no obligation to submit the question to the jury (People v Watts, supra; People v Alston, 104 AD2d 653, 654). The trial court correctly determined that there was in fact no reasonable view of the evidence to support the defendant’s claim that he was justified in shooting Carlos Bonilla four times.

After the trial had commenced, the defendant jumped bail and fled the jurisdiction. The trial was thereafter continued in his absence, with the court correctly instructing the jury with respect to the defendant’s failure to appear. The defendant now maintains that he did not receive sufficient warning that the trial would continue in his absence if he did not appear on the scheduled dates. Without regard to trial counsel’s failure to object to continuation of the trial in his client’s absence, we note that the Court of Appeals has in any event foreclosed a claim of this nature (see, People v Sanchez, 65 NY2d 436, 443-444). We have reviewed the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered April 21, 1977, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court erred in refusing his request to instruct the jury as to the defense of justification. We disagree. In determining whether a justification charge is warranted, the evidence at trial must be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, and if that evidence sufficiently supports the asserted defense the court should instruct the jury as to that defense and must do so upon request (People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299, 301; People v Ruiz, 96 AD2d 845). However, when no reasonable view of the evidence would [814]*814support a finding of justification, then the court is under no obligation to submit the question to the jury (People v Watts, supra; People v Alston, 104 AD2d 653, 654). The trial court correctly determined that there was in fact no reasonable view of the evidence to support the defendant’s claim that he was justified in shooting Carlos Bonilla four times.

After the trial had commenced, the defendant jumped bail and fled the jurisdiction. The trial was thereafter continued in his absence, with the court correctly instructing the jury with respect to the defendant’s failure to appear. The defendant now maintains that he did not receive sufficient warning that the trial would continue in his absence if he did not appear on the scheduled dates. Without regard to trial counsel’s failure to object to continuation of the trial in his client’s absence, we note that the Court of Appeals has in any event foreclosed a claim of this nature (see, People v Sanchez, 65 NY2d 436, 443-444). We have reviewed the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 813, 499 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-acevedo-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack