People v. Colonna

• Citation: 537 N.Y.S.2d 877,147 A.D.2d 582
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. John COLONNA, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 14 February 1989
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 877

537 N.Y.S.2d 877

147 A.D.2d 582

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. John COLONNA, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Feb. 14, 1989.

Elaine D. McKnight, Brooklyn, for appellant.

Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood and Jessica Hecht, of counsel, Robyn Grabelsky, on the brief), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and RUBIN, SPATT and BALLETTA, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leone, J.), rendered May 22, 1986, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Initially, we conclude that the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his oral and videotaped statements. While there was evidence indicating that the defendant had been drinking on the night of the stabbing and that his arrest occurred shortly thereafter, there is no indication that he was so intoxicated that he was unable to comprehend the meaning of his statements, or that he lacked an awareness or understanding of his admission (see, People v. Schompert, 19 N.Y.2d 300, 279 N.Y.S.2d 515, 226 N.E.2d 305 cert. denied 389 U.S. 874, 88 S.Ct. 164, 19 L.Ed.2d 157; People v. Provosty, 141 A.D.2d 867, 529 N.Y.S.2d 894; People v. Jenkins, 134 A.D.2d 523, 521 N.Y.S.2d 450).

The defendant's further contention that due to his alleged intoxication, he could not have acted recklessly in stabbing his victim, is without merit. Voluntary intoxication does not negate the element of recklessness necessary to sustain a conviction of manslaughter in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 15.05[3]; Penal Law § 125.15[1]; People v. Register, 60 N.Y.2d 270, 469 N.Y.S.2d 599, 457 N.E.2d 704, cert. denied 466 U.S. 953, 104 S.Ct. 2159, 80 L.Ed.2d 544).

In addition, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932). 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] ).

Furthermore, the...