People v. Norman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Norman

118 A.D.2d 597, 499 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54457

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 597 (People v. Norman) 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. Norman, 118 A.D.2d 597, 499 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54457 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.), rendered October 8, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err in permitting the introduction of evidence that the defendant had recently assaulted the victim. This evidence went to establish the defendant’s motive and intent and the court properly instructed the jury of the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted (see, People v Mees, 47 NY2d 997, 998).

Despite undisputed evidence that defendant was drunk at the time of the homicide, there is no basis in the record for disturbing the jury’s verdict since, from the facts of this case, it could have been reasonably concluded that the defendant had the requisite intent to commit the crime charged (see, People v Charles, 114 AD2d 466; People v Orr, 43 AD2d 836, affd 35 NY2d 829). Bracken, J. P., Niehoif, Rubin and Lawrence, 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 (Kooper, J.), rendered October 8, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err in permitting the introduction of evidence that the defendant had recently assaulted the victim. This evidence went to establish the defendant’s motive and intent and the court properly instructed the jury of the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted (see, People v Mees, 47 NY2d 997, 998).

Despite undisputed evidence that defendant was drunk at the time of the homicide, there is no basis in the record for disturbing the jury’s verdict since, from the facts of this case, it could have been reasonably concluded that the defendant had the requisite intent to commit the crime charged (see, People v Charles, 114 AD2d 466; People v Orr, 43 AD2d 836, affd 35 NY2d 829). Bracken, J. P., Niehoif, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 597, 499 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-norman-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack