People v. Britton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Britton

49 A.D.3d 893, 853 N.Y.2d 898

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 893 (People v. Britton) 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. Britton, 49 A.D.3d 893, 853 N.Y.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree was not legally insufficient due to a lack of proof of intent. In this case, the element of intent may be inferred from the commission of the act itself, as well as from the defendant’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances (see People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301 [1977]; People v Bryant, 39 AD3d 768 [2007]; People v Persaud, 25 AD3d 626 [2006]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant acted with the requisite intent in committing the offenses of which he was convicted. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree was not legally insufficient due to a lack of proof of intent. In this case, the element of intent may be inferred from the commission of the act itself, as well as from the defendant’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances (see People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301 [1977]; People v Bryant, 39 AD3d 768 [2007]; People v Persaud, 25 AD3d 626 [2006]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant acted with the requisite intent in committing the offenses of which he was convicted. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 893, 853 N.Y.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-britton-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack