People v. Rhoden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rhoden

191 A.D.2d 722, 595 N.Y.S.2d 523

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 722 (People v. Rhoden) 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. Rhoden, 191 A.D.2d 722, 595 N.Y.S.2d 523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered May 7, 1991, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We find that the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request to charge the defense of justification was not error. It is well settled that a court need not charge the defense of justification if, considering the record in the light most favorable to the defendant, no reasonable view of the evidence supports the defense (see, People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816; People v Casado, 177 AD2d 497). Here, there was no evidence which would indicate that the defendant reasonably believed that he was in danger of being subjected to deadly physical force (see, People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299, 302; People v Powell, 181 AD2d 923).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and O’Brien, 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 (Owens, J.), rendered May 7, 1991, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We find that the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request to charge the defense of justification was not error. It is well settled that a court need not charge the defense of justification if, considering the record in the light most favorable to the defendant, no reasonable view of the evidence supports the defense (see, People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816; People v Casado, 177 AD2d 497). Here, there was no evidence which would indicate that the defendant reasonably believed that he was in danger of being subjected to deadly physical force (see, People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299, 302; People v Powell, 181 AD2d 923).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 722, 595 N.Y.S.2d 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rhoden-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack