People v. Holliday
| Decision Date | 02 December 1975 |
| Citation | 38 N.Y.2d 763,343 N.E.2d 770,381 N.Y.S.2d 53 |
| Parties | , 343 N.E.2d 770 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James HOLLIDAY, also known as James Holeday, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Carol Berkman and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. (Robert K. Hood and Peter L. Zimroth, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division, 44 A.D.2d 910, 355 N.Y.S.2d 1020 should be affirmed.
On January 20, 1971, appellant stabbed Betty Williams through the heart and she died less than three months thereafter. Upon trial of the indictment charging murder and in submitting the question of appellant's sobriety at the time of the attack, the jurors were instructed, Inter alia, that they could consider any evidence on the subject, that any determination as to defendant's condition was to be based on evidence and not on speculation or innuendos, and that, if defendant was so intoxicated that he did not have the appropriate intent, he would not be guilty. On the whole, the charge on intoxication was consistent with New York law (Penal Law, § 15.25; People v. Jones, 27 N.Y.2d 222, 228--229, 316 N.Y.S.2d 617, 265 N.E.2d 446; People v. Koerber, 244 N.Y. 147, 150--151, 152, 155 N.E. 79). Indeed, appellant's brief concedes that the 'court's terse comments that appellant's actual use of alcohol 'may be relevant', if it 'was such as to negative the existence of a specific intent", were 'in and of themselves correct'.
Appellant urges that the trial court charged erroneously that appellant's reputation and habits were irrelevant, this argument being based apparently on the instruction that the jury should 'completely disregard any evidence as to what the defendant's drinking habits were on other occasions.' Th admonition correctly informed the jury that evidence of mere prior instances of intemperance could not be considered in determining whether defendant had the requisite intent or was in an intoxicated condition at the time of the stabbing (Noonan v. Luther, 206 N.Y. 105, 108, 99 N.E. 178; Zucker v. Whitridge, 205 N.Y. 50, 64, 66, 98 N.E. 209; Cleghorn v. New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R.R. Co., 56 N.Y. 44, 46; Del Toro v. Carroll, 33 A.D.2d 160, 163--165, 306 N.Y.S.2d 95; McQuage v. City of New York, 285 App.Div. 249, 253, 136 N.Y.S.2d 111; 1 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), § 96; Fisch, New York Evidence, § 216; 21 N.Y.Jur. Evidence, § 188; cf. Kowalczyk v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Fappiano
...to allow an inference that the witness was intoxicated at the time of the viewing of the events (People v. Holliday, 38 N.Y.2d 763, 765, 381 N.Y.S.2d 53, 343 N.E.2d 770; DelToro v. Carroll, 33 A.D.2d 160, 164, 306 N.Y.S.2d 95; McQuage v. City of New York, 285 App.Div. 249, 253-254, 136 N.Y.......
-
Kohler v. Kelly
... ... People v. Koerber, 244 N.Y. 147, 155 N.E. 79 (1926); People v. Goodman, 152 A.D.2d 705, 544 N.Y.S.2d 163 (2d Dept.1989) ... People v. Holliday, 38 N.Y.2d 763, 381 N.Y.S.2d 53, 343 N.E.2d 770 (1975) ... Respondent also claims that Kohler could not have used intoxication as ... ...
-
People v. Mosher
... ... On the other hand, the victim's prior convictions for possessing drugs were properly excluded for they were irrelevant to the defense of justification (People v. Miller, 39 N.Y.2d 543, 384 N.Y.S.2d 741, 349 N.E.2d 841) and were not otherwise admissible (cf. People v. Holliday, 38 N.Y.2d 763, 381 N.Y.S.2d 53, 343 N.E.2d 770). As for the charge, the trial court repeatedly stressed that a finding of guilt on either the robbery or burglary accusation was essential to a conviction for felony murder. The order in which the various charges were submitted did not, in our ... ...
-
People v. Morton
... ... Getch, 50 N.Y.2d 456, 429 N.Y.S.2d 579, 407 N.E.2d 425). Further there is no general requirement that the court specifically relate intoxication to the particular intent requirement of each of the crimes charged (see, People v. Holliday, 38 N.Y.2d 763, 381 N.Y.S.2d 53, 343 N.E.2d 770; People v. Leary, 64 A.D.2d 825, 407 N.Y.S.2d 313) ... Any issue with respect to the conduct of the court during the trial was also not preserved for review since trial counsel made no objection whatsoever to the remarks now ... ...