People v. Mota

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mota

295 A.D.2d 118, 742 N.Y.S.2d 547, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5887

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

DecidedJune 4, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 118 (People v. Mota) 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. Mota, 295 A.D.2d 118, 742 N.Y.S.2d 547, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered August 12, 1998, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 15 years to life and one year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting under extreme emotional disturbance. Contrary to defendant’s claim, he satisfied neither the subjective nor the objective elements of his defense (see, People v White, 79 NY2d 900). There is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s resolution of the conflict between the expert testimony presented by the prosecution and defense. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered August 12, 1998, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 15 years to life and one year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting under extreme emotional disturbance. Contrary to defendant’s claim, he satisfied neither the subjective nor the objective elements of his defense (see, People v White, 79 NY2d 900). There is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s resolution of the conflict between the expert testimony presented by the prosecution and defense. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 118, 742 N.Y.S.2d 547, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mota-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack