People v. Palacios

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Palacios

302 A.D.2d 540, 755 N.Y.S.2d 268

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 540 (People v. Palacios) 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. Palacios, 302 A.D.2d 540, 755 N.Y.S.2d 268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mullin, J.), rendered February 4, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[541]*541Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The jury determination that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse” when he shot and killed the victim was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]; see People v Roche, 98 NY2d 70, 75 [2002]; People v Casassa, 49 NY2d 668, 675 [1980], cert denied 449 US 842 [1980]). The circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime were not indicative of a loss of self-control or similar mental infirmity (see People v Roche, supra). Accordingly, the jury properly rejected the defendant’s affirmative defense.

As a rebuttal witness, the People presented a psychiatrist who testified about a statement by an individual who alleged that the defendant had previously pointed a gun at the victim, his girlfriend. The defendant contends that this statement was hearsay and that its admission into evidence warrants reversal of the judgment of conviction. However, “ ‘hearsay testimony given by [an] expert * * * for the limited purpose of informing the jury of the basis of the expert’s opinion and not for the truth of the matters related’ is admissible” (People v Wright, 266 AD2d 246, 247 [1999], quoting People v Campbell, 197 AD2d 930, 932-933 [1993]).

The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s interested witness charge was improper is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v Walls, 91 NY2d 987 [1998]), and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Agosto, 73 NY2d 963 [1989]).

Under the circumstances, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Adams, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Mullin, J.), rendered February 4, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[541]*541Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The jury determination that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse” when he shot and killed the victim was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]; see People v Roche, 98 NY2d 70, 75 [2002]; People v Casassa, 49 NY2d 668, 675 [1980], cert denied 449 US 842 [1980]). The circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime were not indicative of a loss of self-control or similar mental infirmity (see People v Roche, supra). Accordingly, the jury properly rejected the defendant’s affirmative defense.

As a rebuttal witness, the People presented a psychiatrist who testified about a statement by an individual who alleged that the defendant had previously pointed a gun at the victim, his girlfriend. The defendant contends that this statement was hearsay and that its admission into evidence warrants reversal of the judgment of conviction. However, “ ‘hearsay testimony given by [an] expert * * * for the limited purpose of informing the jury of the basis of the expert’s opinion and not for the truth of the matters related’ is admissible” (People v Wright, 266 AD2d 246, 247 [1999], quoting People v Campbell, 197 AD2d 930, 932-933 [1993]).

The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s interested witness charge was improper is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v Walls, 91 NY2d 987 [1998]), and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Agosto, 73 NY2d 963 [1989]).

Under the circumstances, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 540, 755 N.Y.S.2d 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-palacios-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack