People v. Gittens
| Citation | 139 A.D.2d 591,527 N.Y.S.2d 84 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Frederick GITTENS, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 11 April 1988 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mitchell Rosenblatt, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Nikki Kowalski and Carol Teague Schwartzkopf, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BROWN, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, KOOPER and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Finnegan, J.), rendered August 7, 1986, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant argues, inter alia, that the proof of his guilt was legally insufficient and did not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The record reveals that after an argument had ensued between the defendant and his wife--during which she threatened to divorce him--the defendant approached his wife from behind later in the evening as she lay in her bed and asked if she truly wished to terminate their marriage. When his wife stated that she did, the defendant replied, "Okay, I'm going to end it for good this time". Immediately thereafter the wife felt a stinging sensation in her neck and, upon observing blood, realized that she had been stabbed. She then saw the defendant run out of the bedroom.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People ( People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 497 N.Y.S.2d 637, 488 N.E.2d 458; People v. Giuliano, 65 N.Y.2d 766, 492 N.Y.S.2d 939, 482 N.E.2d 557), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15[5] ).
Finally, in view of the brutal and deliberate nature of the attack we are not prepared to say that the Sentencing Judge acted improperly in imposing the sentence that he did (see, People v. Thom, 132 A.D.2d 584, 517 N.Y.S.2d 431; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Diaz
... ... The evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of attempted murder (see, People v. Guzman, 180 A.D.2d 469, 579 N.Y.S.2d 386; People v. Gittens, 139 A.D.2d 591, 527 N.Y.S.2d 84, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 859, 532 N.Y.S.2d 509, 528 N.E.2d 900). The court's instruction on identification as a whole adequately conveyed the appropriate principles of law (People v. Adams, 69 N.Y.2d 805, 513 N.Y.S.2d 381, 505 N.E.2d 946), properly applied the law to ... ...
-
People v. Goode
... ... The evidence presented by the People, including the complainant's testimony and the proof regarding the nature and location of the complainant's injuries, sufficed to establish that the defendant utilized a dangerous instrument (see, People v. Gittens, 139 A.D.2d 591, 527 N.Y.S.2d 84) to intentionally cause serious physical injury and serious and permanent disfigurement to the complainant (see, People v. Cole, 188 A.D.2d 482, 592 N.Y.S.2d 599; People v. Wade, 187 A.D.2d 687, 590 N.Y.S.2d 245). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review ... ...
- People v. Gittens