People v. Culpepper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Culpepper

118 A.D.2d 866, 500 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54722

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 866 (People v. Culpepper) 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. Culpepper, 118 A.D.2d 866, 500 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54722 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fuchs, J.), rendered October 28, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that the jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant possessed the intent to murder Arthur Green. Such intent could be inferred from the defendant’s repeated firing of a gun in Green’s direction shortly after an altercation the defendant had with Green and others, and immediately after the defendant twice shot and seriously injured Marjorie McDonald (see, People v Barnes, 50 NY2d 375, 381; People v Horton, 18 NY2d 355, 359, remittitur amended 19 NY2d 600, 634, cert denied 387 US 934; People v O’Dell, 111 AD2d 937; People v Austin, 106 AD2d 859).

The defendant’s unpreserved claim of error in the court’s interested witness charge does not require a reversal in light of the strength of the evidence of guilt (cf. People v Brabham, 77 AD2d 626). Nor do we find the defendant’s sentence to be inappropriate. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff 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 (Fuchs, J.), rendered October 28, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that the jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant possessed the intent to murder Arthur Green. Such intent could be inferred from the defendant’s repeated firing of a gun in Green’s direction shortly after an altercation the defendant had with Green and others, and immediately after the defendant twice shot and seriously injured Marjorie McDonald (see, People v Barnes, 50 NY2d 375, 381; People v Horton, 18 NY2d 355, 359, remittitur amended 19 NY2d 600, 634, cert denied 387 US 934; People v O’Dell, 111 AD2d 937; People v Austin, 106 AD2d 859).

The defendant’s unpreserved claim of error in the court’s interested witness charge does not require a reversal in light of the strength of the evidence of guilt (cf. People v Brabham, 77 AD2d 626). Nor do we find the defendant’s sentence to be inappropriate. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 866, 500 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-culpepper-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack