People v. Dildine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dildine

186 A.D.2d 1010, 590 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11552

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1010 (People v. Dildine) 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. Dildine, 186 A.D.2d 1010, 590 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that the trial court’s instructions on intoxication were erroneous. The court properly instructed the jury to consider whether defendant’s intoxication made him incapable of forming the intent to kill or cause injury to the victim (see, People v Westergard, 69 NY2d 642, 644; People v Koerber, 244 NY 147; People v Lang, 143 AD2d 685; 1 CJI[NY] 9:46, at 521). We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be lacking in merit. Finally, we decline to modify defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Purple, Jr., J. — Attempted Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that the trial court’s instructions on intoxication were erroneous. The court properly instructed the jury to consider whether defendant’s intoxication made him incapable of forming the intent to kill or cause injury to the victim (see, People v Westergard, 69 NY2d 642, 644; People v Koerber, 244 NY 147; People v Lang, 143 AD2d 685; 1 CJI[NY] 9:46, at 521). We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be lacking in merit. Finally, we decline to modify defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Purple, Jr., J. — Attempted Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1010, 590 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dildine-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack