People v. Goldring

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Goldring

133 A.D.3d 684, 19 N.Y.S.3d 87

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

DecidedNovember 12, 2015

Docket2013-00201

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 A.D.3d 684 (People v. Goldring) 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. Goldring, 133 A.D.3d 684, 19 N.Y.S.3d 87 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered December 20, 2012, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court dated March 29, 2013, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction rendered December 20, 2012.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed as academic in light of our determination on the appeal from the judgment.

The defendant’s convictions of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree arise *685 out of an incident during which the defendant allegedly struck another man (hereinafter the complainant) with a metal pipe in the presence of the complainant’s wife. Viewing the intoxication evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Farnsworth, 65 NY2d 734 [1985]), we conclude, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, that an intoxication instruction (see Penal Law § 15.25) was warranted (see People v Smith, 43 AD3d 475 [2007]). The complainant’s wife testified that, just prior to the subject assault, she observed the defendant with a can of beer in his hand and that the defendant seemed drunk. She further testified that the defendant’s breath smelled like beer, his speech was slurred, and that the defendant, with whom she was familiar, was “not himself.” Under these circumstances, there is “sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis” (People v Perry, 61 NY2d 849, 850 [1984]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s request to give an intoxication instruction to the jury and, thus, reversal is warranted. Hall, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered December 20, 2012, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court dated March 29, 2013, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction rendered December 20, 2012.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed as academic in light of our determination on the appeal from the judgment.

The defendant’s convictions of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree arise *685 out of an incident during which the defendant allegedly struck another man (hereinafter the complainant) with a metal pipe in the presence of the complainant’s wife. Viewing the intoxication evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Farnsworth, 65 NY2d 734 [1985]), we conclude, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, that an intoxication instruction (see Penal Law § 15.25) was warranted (see People v Smith, 43 AD3d 475 [2007]). The complainant’s wife testified that, just prior to the subject assault, she observed the defendant with a can of beer in his hand and that the defendant seemed drunk. She further testified that the defendant’s breath smelled like beer, his speech was slurred, and that the defendant, with whom she was familiar, was “not himself.” Under these circumstances, there is “sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis” (People v Perry, 61 NY2d 849, 850 [1984]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s request to give an intoxication instruction to the jury and, thus, reversal is warranted. Hall, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 684, 19 N.Y.S.3d 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-goldring-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack