People v. Douglas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Douglas

291 A.D.2d 455, 737 N.Y.S.2d 545, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1673

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 455 (People v. Douglas) 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. Douglas, 291 A.D.2d 455, 737 N.Y.S.2d 545, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1673 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered July 3, 2000, convicting him of criminal mischief, in the second degree and harassment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence that he intended to damage property when he drove his sport utility vehicle into the glass entranceway of a movie theater. We disagree. Intent can be inferred from the act itself or from the defendant’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances (see, People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296; People v McGee, 204 AD2d 353). Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of criminal mischief in the second degree (see, People v McDonald, 287 AD2d 655; People v Bodine, 231 AD2d 840; cf., People v Washington, 18 NY2d 366). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, H. Miller and Cozier, 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 County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered July 3, 2000, convicting him of criminal mischief, in the second degree and harassment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence that he intended to damage property when he drove his sport utility vehicle into the glass entranceway of a movie theater. We disagree. Intent can be inferred from the act itself or from the defendant’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances (see, People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296; People v McGee, 204 AD2d 353). Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of criminal mischief in the second degree (see, People v McDonald, 287 AD2d 655; People v Bodine, 231 AD2d 840; cf., People v Washington, 18 NY2d 366). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 455, 737 N.Y.S.2d 545, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-douglas-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack