People v. Bodine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bodine

231 A.D.2d 840, 648 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14197

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 840 (People v. Bodine) 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. Bodine, 231 A.D.2d 840, 648 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of, inter alia, criminal mischief in the fourth degree pursuant to Penal Law § 145.00 (1), defendant contends that his conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence that he intended to damage the car driven by the victim when it was struck by several bullets from a gun that defendant fired at the victim. We disagree. We conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to satisfy the mens rea requirement of intent to damage property (cf., People v [841]*841Washington, 18 NY2d 366; People v Roberts, 140 AD2d 961; People v Bryant, 85 AD2d 575, 576).

We have reviewed the remaining contentions of defendant, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and conclude that they are lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.—Criminal Possession Weapon, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Fallon, Wesley and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of, inter alia, criminal mischief in the fourth degree pursuant to Penal Law § 145.00 (1), defendant contends that his conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence that he intended to damage the car driven by the victim when it was struck by several bullets from a gun that defendant fired at the victim. We disagree. We conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to satisfy the mens rea requirement of intent to damage property (cf., People v [841]*841Washington, 18 NY2d 366; People v Roberts, 140 AD2d 961; People v Bryant, 85 AD2d 575, 576).

We have reviewed the remaining contentions of defendant, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and conclude that they are lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.—Criminal Possession Weapon, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Fallon, Wesley and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 840, 648 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bodine-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack