People v. Otero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Otero

168 A.D.2d 926, 566 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16465

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D.2d 926 (People v. Otero) 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. Otero, 168 A.D.2d 926, 566 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not err in rejecting defendant’s request for instructions on intoxication and the defense of justification. The record, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant (see, People v Padgett, 60 NY2d 142), reveals nothing from which the jury could rationally conclude that defendant believed he was threatened with deadly physical force or that defendant sought to withdraw from the encounter or that his reactions were those of a reasonable man acting in self-defense (see, Penal Law § 35.15; People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816, 818, habeas corpus denied sub nom. Reynoso v Leonardo, 735 F Supp 134, affd 916 F2d 709). Also, there was no evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant’s mental or physical faculties were impaired by alcohol (see, People v Rodriguez, 76 NY2d 918; People v Perry, 61 NY2d 849, 850).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Wayne County Court, Strobridge, J.—manslaughter, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not err in rejecting defendant’s request for instructions on intoxication and the defense of justification. The record, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant (see, People v Padgett, 60 NY2d 142), reveals nothing from which the jury could rationally conclude that defendant believed he was threatened with deadly physical force or that defendant sought to withdraw from the encounter or that his reactions were those of a reasonable man acting in self-defense (see, Penal Law § 35.15; People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816, 818, habeas corpus denied sub nom. Reynoso v Leonardo, 735 F Supp 134, affd 916 F2d 709). Also, there was no evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant’s mental or physical faculties were impaired by alcohol (see, People v Rodriguez, 76 NY2d 918; People v Perry, 61 NY2d 849, 850).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Wayne County Court, Strobridge, J.—manslaughter, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 926, 566 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-otero-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack