People v. Fontaine

105 A.D.2d 710, 481 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20821
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 5, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 710 (People v. Fontaine) 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. Fontaine, 105 A.D.2d 710, 481 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demakos, J.), rendered March 15, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[711]*711Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err in admitting rebuttal evidence offered by the People in response to defendant’s attempt to prove that his presence in the burgled premises was innocent. This evidence tended to contradict defendant’s testimony and to disprove his claim that he was but a good Samaritan who, upon passing near the premises, heard a burglar alarm sound, saw two teenagers run out of the premises, and subsequently entered the building to see if anyone needed assistance, having received no answer to his knocking on the door and window and hollering (see People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335, 345, cert den 460 US 1047). Since the rebuttal evidence directly challenged the truth of what defendant stated with regard to the reason for his presence in the building, it cannot be said to be collateral (see People v Hill, 52 AD2d 609, 611).

We also note that defendant was not entitled to a justification charge. Not only did he fail to request such a charge but even considering the record in a light most favorable to him (People v Steele, 26 NY2d 526, 529), the evidence would not support such a charge. The defense of justification could not excuse the crimes of which defendant was convicted (cf. People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 130) and the charge adequately informed the jury as to the requisite intent element of these crimes. Niehoff, J. P., Boyers, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Portis
141 A.D.2d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. Ortiz
133 A.D.2d 853 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
People v. Swinson
111 A.D.2d 275 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. Buggs
109 A.D.2d 1052 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 A.D.2d 710, 481 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fontaine-nyappdiv-1984.