People v. Kilpatrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kilpatrick

154 A.D.2d 621, 546 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13468

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 154 A.D.2d 621 (People v. Kilpatrick) 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. Kilpatrick, 154 A.D.2d 621, 546 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13468 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered February 18, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Even assuming, arguendo, that the evidence proffered by the defendant at trial sufficed to meet the threshold requirement that he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance, we find that the jury could have reasonably found that he failed to satisfy his burden of establishing a reasonable explanation or excuse for the emotional disturbance (see, People v Casassa, 49 NY2d 668; People v Torres, 144 AD2d 709).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those relating to the propriety of the sentence imposed, and find them to be meritless. The maximum consecutive sentence imposed by the court was entirely appropriate in light of the brutal savagery of the crimes for which he was convicted. Mangano, J. Pi, Thompson, Eiber and Balletta, 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 (Aiello, J.), rendered February 18, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Even assuming, arguendo, that the evidence proffered by the defendant at trial sufficed to meet the threshold requirement that he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance, we find that the jury could have reasonably found that he failed to satisfy his burden of establishing a reasonable explanation or excuse for the emotional disturbance (see, People v Casassa, 49 NY2d 668; People v Torres, 144 AD2d 709).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those relating to the propriety of the sentence imposed, and find them to be meritless. The maximum consecutive sentence imposed by the court was entirely appropriate in light of the brutal savagery of the crimes for which he was convicted. Mangano, J. Pi, Thompson, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 621, 546 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kilpatrick-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack