People v. Kruger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kruger

184 A.D.2d 1031, 586 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8269

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

DecidedJune 5, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 1031 (People v. Kruger) 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. Kruger, 184 A.D.2d 1031, 586 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8269 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on intoxication pursuant to Penal Law § 15.25. On the evidence at trial, no reasonable jury could have inferred that defendant’s capacity to form an intent had been affected by the ingestion of alcohol or drugs (see, People v Rodriguez, 76 NY2d 918, 920-921). Moreover, that issue is unpreserved; defendant neither requested an intoxication charge nor excepted to the absence of such charge (see, CPL 470.05 [2]).

We have examined defendant’s other contention and find it also to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Boehm, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on intoxication pursuant to Penal Law § 15.25. On the evidence at trial, no reasonable jury could have inferred that defendant’s capacity to form an intent had been affected by the ingestion of alcohol or drugs (see, People v Rodriguez, 76 NY2d 918, 920-921). Moreover, that issue is unpreserved; defendant neither requested an intoxication charge nor excepted to the absence of such charge (see, CPL 470.05 [2]).

We have examined defendant’s other contention and find it also to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Boehm, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 1031, 586 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kruger-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack