People v. Bonifacio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bonifacio

228 A.D.2d 166, 644 N.Y.2d 5, 644 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6275

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

DecidedJune 4, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 166 (People v. Bonifacio) 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. Bonifacio, 228 A.D.2d 166, 644 N.Y.2d 5, 644 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Homicidal intent was established by the complainant’s testimony that defendant led her to the enclosed parking garage at the base of their apartment building at 6:00 a.m. with an offer to drive her to work; that he waited for her behind the open trunk of his car, came upon her from behind, covered her mouth with a liquid-soaked rag as he choked her and struck her in the head several times with a hammer; and that, after she managed to escape outside to a public area, pursued her and continued to inflict blows to her head with the hammer despite her cries for help, and abruptly left her at or about the same time an eyewitness shouted from an apartment window for defendant to stop. We reject defendant’s argument that the victim’s physical injuries are inconsistent with an intent to kill; injury need not be proved in order to convict defendant of the crime of attempted murder in the second degree (People v Guzman, 180 AD2d 469, 471). The issue raised by defendant concerning the credibility of his own testimony was properly placed before the trier of fact, and we find no reason to disturb its determination. We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Homicidal intent was established by the complainant’s testimony that defendant led her to the enclosed parking garage at the base of their apartment building at 6:00 a.m. with an offer to drive her to work; that he waited for her behind the open trunk of his car, came upon her from behind, covered her mouth with a liquid-soaked rag as he choked her and struck her in the head several times with a hammer; and that, after she managed to escape outside to a public area, pursued her and continued to inflict blows to her head with the hammer despite her cries for help, and abruptly left her at or about the same time an eyewitness shouted from an apartment window for defendant to stop. We reject defendant’s argument that the victim’s physical injuries are inconsistent with an intent to kill; injury need not be proved in order to convict defendant of the crime of attempted murder in the second degree (People v Guzman, 180 AD2d 469, 471). The issue raised by defendant concerning the credibility of his own testimony was properly placed before the trier of fact, and we find no reason to disturb its determination. We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 166, 644 N.Y.2d 5, 644 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bonifacio-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack