People v. Enriquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Enriquez

266 A.D.2d 308, 698 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11273

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 308 (People v. Enriquez) 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. Enriquez, 266 A.D.2d 308, 698 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11273 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered October 8, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s charge on the justification defense was erroneous because it did not explain the subjective nature of “reasonable belief’ is raised for the first time on appeal. Because the defendant neither made an objection or took an exception to the charge and because he requested no supplemental instruction, the claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Riley, 200 AD2d 692; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245).

In any event, while we agree that the charge did not conform to the requirements set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v Wesley (76 NY2d 555, 559) and People v Goetz (68 NY2d 96, 114-115), the court’s error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence that the defendant failed to retreat when he knew it was safe to do so and that he used excessive force in defending himself against his victim, firing several shots into the victim as he lay on the ground (see, People v Rivera, 205 AD2d 807, 808; People v Major, 116 AD2d 594, 595).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Delgado, 80 NY2d 780, 781-782; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Altman, 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 (Hall, J.), rendered October 8, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s charge on the justification defense was erroneous because it did not explain the subjective nature of “reasonable belief’ is raised for the first time on appeal. Because the defendant neither made an objection or took an exception to the charge and because he requested no supplemental instruction, the claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Riley, 200 AD2d 692; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245).

In any event, while we agree that the charge did not conform to the requirements set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v Wesley (76 NY2d 555, 559) and People v Goetz (68 NY2d 96, 114-115), the court’s error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence that the defendant failed to retreat when he knew it was safe to do so and that he used excessive force in defending himself against his victim, firing several shots into the victim as he lay on the ground (see, People v Rivera, 205 AD2d 807, 808; People v Major, 116 AD2d 594, 595).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Delgado, 80 NY2d 780, 781-782; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 308, 698 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-enriquez-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack