People v. Seeley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Seeley

13 A.D.3d 562, 786 N.Y.S.2d 315, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15594

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 562 (People v. Seeley) 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. Seeley, 13 A.D.3d 562, 786 N.Y.S.2d 315, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15594 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal, J.), rendered April 25, 2003, convicting her of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury that the defense of justification is available to an initial aggressor if her or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates that withdrawal to the other person, but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force. This claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Barrett, 11 AD3d 551 [2004]), and, under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Smith and Fisher, 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 (Leventhal, J.), rendered April 25, 2003, convicting her of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury that the defense of justification is available to an initial aggressor if her or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates that withdrawal to the other person, but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force. This claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Barrett, 11 AD3d 551 [2004]), and, under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Smith and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 562, 786 N.Y.S.2d 315, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-seeley-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack