People v. Walden

227 A.D.2d 887, 643 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6774
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 31, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 887 (People v. Walden) 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. Walden, 227 A.D.2d 887, 643 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By requesting that Supreme Court charge criminally negligent homicide as a lesser included offense of murder in the second degree under the first count of the indictment (intentional murder) and by failing to object when the court charged criminally negligent homicide as a lesser [888]*888included offense of murder in the second degree under the second count of the indictment (depraved indifference murder), defendant waived any claim that there is no reasonable view of the evidence that she committed the lesser crime (see, People v Alvarado, 213 AD2d 1013, lv denied 86 NY2d 732). Moreover, by failing to object to the submission of that charge on sufficiency grounds, defendant failed to preserve her sufficiency challenge for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10).

The jury verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). This Court must "weigh the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged without objection by defendant” (People v Noble, 86 NY2d 814, 815). Thus viewed, the evidence supports the jury’s determination that defendant created a substantial risk of her husband’s death by shooting her husband and by failing to seek medical attention for him immediately after the shooting. Although the People’s medical experts gave conflicting testimony regarding the likelihood that the victim could have survived the bullet wound to the heart, the jury’s resolution of that conflict should not be disturbed (see, People v Gruttola, 43 NY2d 116, 122; People v DeJac, 219 AD2d 102). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.— Criminally Negligent Homicide.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Fallon, Wesley and Balio, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Kearney
25 A.D.3d 622 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Harris
273 A.D.2d 807 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
227 A.D.2d 887, 643 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-walden-nyappdiv-1996.