People v. Perry
This text of 462 N.E.2d 143 (People v. Perry) 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.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and a new trial ordered. The trial court’s refusal to charge on intoxication denied defendant his right to have the jury properly consider the effect intoxication could have on the element of intent (Penal Law, § 15.25). A charge on intoxication should be given if there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis (People v Orr, 43 AD2d 836, affd 35 NY2d 829; see, also, People v Lee, 35 NY2d 826). On the present record, al[851]*851though defendant testified that he was aware of his actions, there is undisputed evidence of defendant’s intoxication at the time of the commission of the crime. Therefore, the trial court’s failure to charge on intoxication constitutes reversible error.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed and a new trial ordered in a memorandum.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
462 N.E.2d 143, 61 N.Y.2d 849, 473 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perry-ny-1984.