People v. Ravnell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ravnell

199 A.D.2d 546, 608 N.Y.S.2d 98

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 546 (People v. Ravnell) 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. Ravnell, 199 A.D.2d 546, 608 N.Y.S.2d 98 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered October 9, 1991, convicting her of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that her conviction based upon accessorial liability was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. She asserts that, to the extent she may be said to have participated in the acts culminating in the fatal stabbing of the victim, she did not do so with the requisite intent. We disagree. Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it supports the inference that the defendant was aware that her companion intended to inflict serious physical injury upon the victim, and that she shared this intent (see, People v Adams, 185 AD2d 326). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Santucci, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered October 9, 1991, convicting her of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that her conviction based upon accessorial liability was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. She asserts that, to the extent she may be said to have participated in the acts culminating in the fatal stabbing of the victim, she did not do so with the requisite intent. We disagree. Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it supports the inference that the defendant was aware that her companion intended to inflict serious physical injury upon the victim, and that she shared this intent (see, People v Adams, 185 AD2d 326). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 546, 608 N.Y.S.2d 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ravnell-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack