People v. Piazza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Piazza

185 A.D.2d 620

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1992

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 185 A.D.2d 620 (People v. Piazza) 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. Piazza, 185 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant bore the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect (see, Penal Law § 40.15; People v Kohl, 72 NY2d 191). In rejecting the affirmative defense, the jury was entitled to rely on the presumption of sanity (see, People v Kohl, supra, at 199) and on the evidence of defendant’s rational and deliberate conduct (see, People v Moss, 179 AD2d 271).

The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecu[621]*621tive sentences. The crimes were separate and distinct acts (Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; People v Brathwaite, 63 NY2d 839, 842-843). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J.—Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Green, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant bore the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect (see, Penal Law § 40.15; People v Kohl, 72 NY2d 191). In rejecting the affirmative defense, the jury was entitled to rely on the presumption of sanity (see, People v Kohl, supra, at 199) and on the evidence of defendant’s rational and deliberate conduct (see, People v Moss, 179 AD2d 271).

The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecu[621]*621tive sentences. The crimes were separate and distinct acts (Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; People v Brathwaite, 63 NY2d 839, 842-843). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J.—Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Green, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A.D.2d 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-piazza-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack