People v. Wong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wong

158 A.D.2d 288, 550 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 868

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 158 A.D.2d 288 (People v. Wong) 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. Wong, 158 A.D.2d 288, 550 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant was arrested after firing five shots at the fleeing complainant who had just hit the codefendant in the face with a tree limb.

Defendant claims that he acted in self-defense and that the prosecution failed to disprove such at trial. Defendant’s contention is without merit. The four witnesses to this incident all agreed that defendant fired the shots across East Broadway in lower Manhattan, after a fleeing complainant. Clearly, there was no current threat to the defendant and the defense of justification is unavailing. (Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a].)

The defendant admits that he did use the weapon but urges that he only fired three times at the ground to ward off the attack by a group of three men, one of whom was the complainant. Defendant fails to show any imminent threat to his person. Furthermore, the testimony of the eyewitnesses provides such substantial evidence against this theory, it must be rejected.

Lastly, defendant urges that his sentence was excessive. Notwithstanding his employment record, the fact that defendant had a prior felony conviction and showed no hesitancy in firing at this fleeing adversary even though innocent bystanders were in the direct line of fire clearly supports the imposition of the above-mentioned sentence. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Defendant was arrested after firing five shots at the fleeing complainant who had just hit the codefendant in the face with a tree limb.

Defendant claims that he acted in self-defense and that the prosecution failed to disprove such at trial. Defendant’s contention is without merit. The four witnesses to this incident all agreed that defendant fired the shots across East Broadway in lower Manhattan, after a fleeing complainant. Clearly, there was no current threat to the defendant and the defense of justification is unavailing. (Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a].)

The defendant admits that he did use the weapon but urges that he only fired three times at the ground to ward off the attack by a group of three men, one of whom was the complainant. Defendant fails to show any imminent threat to his person. Furthermore, the testimony of the eyewitnesses provides such substantial evidence against this theory, it must be rejected.

Lastly, defendant urges that his sentence was excessive. Notwithstanding his employment record, the fact that defendant had a prior felony conviction and showed no hesitancy in firing at this fleeing adversary even though innocent bystanders were in the direct line of fire clearly supports the imposition of the above-mentioned sentence. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 288, 550 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wong-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack