People v. Hon Do Lau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hon Do Lau

255 A.D.2d 524, 680 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12626

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 524 (People v. Hon Do Lau) 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. Hon Do Lau, 255 A.D.2d 524, 680 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered June 23, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court did not err in denying the defendant’s request to charge the jury on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (see, Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see, People v Moye, 66 NY2d 887, 889), the trial court correctly determined that there was no reasonable interpretation of the evidence to support the requested charge. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, 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, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered June 23, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court did not err in denying the defendant’s request to charge the jury on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (see, Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see, People v Moye, 66 NY2d 887, 889), the trial court correctly determined that there was no reasonable interpretation of the evidence to support the requested charge. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 524, 680 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hon-do-lau-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack