People v. Perez

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Perez

476 N.E.2d 995, 64 N.Y.2d 868, 487 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 14152

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 476 N.E.2d 995 (People v. Perez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Perez, 476 N.E.2d 995, 64 N.Y.2d 868, 487 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 14152 (N.Y. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was sufficient for the jury to conclude that defendant intended to kill Martell when he fired the rifle through the locked wooden door to the back room of Martell’s social club. Defendant fired the shot almost immediately after Martell had pushed the rifle away from his chest and had slammed the door shut between them. The shot was fired at a height of approximately four feet, the same height as some vital bodily organs. As the defendant could have observed, the area immediately on the other side of the door was no wider than the doorway, and the jury thus could have found that defendant assumed that Martell was in the line of fire when he shot through the door. Additionally, defendant’s conduct just prior to the shooting supports a conclusion that he decided to kill Martell either to prevent him from turning defendant in for robbing a patron in the club or out of frustration for Martell not taking his attempt to rob the entire club seriously.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur; Judge Alexander taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was sufficient for the jury to conclude that defendant intended to kill Martell when he fired the rifle through the locked wooden door to the back room of Martell’s social club. Defendant fired the shot almost immediately after Martell had pushed the rifle away from his chest and had slammed the door shut between them. The shot was fired at a height of approximately four feet, the same height as some vital bodily organs. As the defendant could have observed, the area immediately on the other side of the door was no wider than the doorway, and the jury thus could have found that defendant assumed that Martell was in the line of fire when he shot through the door. Additionally, defendant’s conduct just prior to the shooting supports a conclusion that he decided to kill Martell either to prevent him from turning defendant in for robbing a patron in the club or out of frustration for Martell not taking his attempt to rob the entire club seriously.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur; Judge Alexander taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 N.E.2d 995, 64 N.Y.2d 868, 487 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 14152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perez-ny-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack