People v. Bowman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bowman

44 A.D.3d 784, 842 N.Y.S.2d 725

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

DecidedOctober 9, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.3d 784 (People v. Bowman) 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. Bowman, 44 A.D.3d 784, 842 N.Y.S.2d 725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[785]*785Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered December 13, 2005, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of renunciation. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Taylor, 80 NY2d 1, 12 [1992]), no reasonable view of the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant made a substantial effort to prevent the crime prior to its commission (see Penal Law § 40.10 [1]; People v Curry, 294 AD2d 608, 612 [2002]; People v Genyard, 288 AD2d 395 [2001]; People v Montes, 211 AD2d 687, 687-688 [1995]). Thus, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s request.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Schmidt, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

[785]*785Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered December 13, 2005, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of renunciation. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Taylor, 80 NY2d 1, 12 [1992]), no reasonable view of the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant made a substantial effort to prevent the crime prior to its commission (see Penal Law § 40.10 [1]; People v Curry, 294 AD2d 608, 612 [2002]; People v Genyard, 288 AD2d 395 [2001]; People v Montes, 211 AD2d 687, 687-688 [1995]). Thus, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s request.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Schmidt, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 784, 842 N.Y.S.2d 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bowman-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack