People v. Drake

247 A.D.2d 855, 668 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1160
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 4, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 855 (People v. Drake) 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. Drake, 247 A.D.2d 855, 668 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1160 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of intentional murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

The contention of defendant that County Court erred in refusing to allow proof that he was misidentified in the commission of an unrelated robbery is without merit. The fact that defendant was misidentified as a perpetrator of a robbery that occurred nine months after the instant crime is irrelevant (see, People v Greenwood, 166 AD2d 353, lv denied 77 NY2d 839).

Also without merit is the contention of defendant that his conviction of intentional murder is against the weight of the [856]*856evidence because the testimony of the eyewitnesses who identified defendant as the shooter was unreliable. There were five eyewitnesses to the shooting, four of whom identified defendant as the shooter. Although there were inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses, they were not such as to make their testimony “ ‘incredible and unbelievable’ ” (People v Shedrick, 104 AD2d 263, 274, affd 66 NY2d 1015, rearg denied 67 NY2d 758).

We reject defendant’s further contention that the conviction of murder in the second degree should be reduced to the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree or manslaughter in the second degree. The court charged the jury on those lesser included offenses and instructed it on the defense of intoxication, explaining that intoxication can negate the intent required for intentional murder.

Finally, defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Drury, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.)

Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Black
38 A.D.3d 1283 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Duffy
299 A.D.2d 914 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Locke
295 A.D.2d 991 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Clark
292 A.D.2d 816 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Beltran
281 A.D.2d 934 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Martin
267 A.D.2d 1095 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 A.D.2d 855, 668 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-drake-nyappdiv-1998.