People v. Lemaire
| Decision Date | 09 November 1992 |
| Citation | 187 A.D.2d 532,589 N.Y.S.2d 919 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Hantz LEMAIRE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Melissa Johnson, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen and Linda Cantoni, of counsel, Michael S. Pollok, on the brief), for respondent.
Before LAWRENCE, J.P., and EIBER, O'BRIEN and COPERTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered March 7, 1990, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's conviction arose out of the stabbing death of Jerome Munn after Munn and the codefendant Keith Cofield became involved in an argument. The defendant presented a justification defense, claiming that Munn came at him with a piece of a broken beer bottle in his hand. However, two eyewitnesses testified that they did not see the victim holding a broken bottle.
The defendant's claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to disprove the defense of justification is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, 523 N.Y.S.2d 492, 518 N.E.2d 4; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 250, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932) the record establishes that the defense of justification was disproved beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Desmond, 125 A.D.2d 585, 510 N.Y.S.2d 6). The People presented the testimony of two witnesses who indicated that the deceased did not have a weapon in his hand. Therefore the jury could have concluded that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the deceased was about to use deadly physical force against him and, consequently, that there was no justifiable basis for the defendant's resort to deadly physical force (see, People v. Sykes, 178 A.D.2d 501, 577 N.Y.S.2d 142; People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96, 106-107, 506 N.Y.S.2d 18, 497 N.E.2d 41). 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]. While the defendant contends that the testimony of a prosecution witness was incredible, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cintron
...sufficient to disprove the defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt ( see Penal Law § 35.15[2][a]; People v. Lemaire, 187 A.D.2d 532, 533, 589 N.Y.S.2d 919; People v. Henegan, 150 A.D.2d 606, 607, 541 N.Y.S.2d 476; People v. Troche, 147 A.D.2d 513, 514, 537 N.Y.S.2d 602; ......
-
People v. Griffin
... ... Therefore, the People disproved the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., People v. Ramsay, 199 A.D.2d 428, 605 N.Y.S.2d 333; People ... v. Lemaire, 187 A.D.2d 532, 589 N.Y.S.2d 919; People v. Mack, 178 A.D.2d 661, 577 N.Y.S.2d 892) ... [207 A.D.2d 845] The trial court did not commit reversible error when it erroneously precluded defense counsel from inquiring into the address of the People's witness. Although the record ... ...
-
People v. Barnett
...defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, 523 N.Y.S.2d 492, 518 N.E.2d 4; People v. Lemaire, 187 A.D.2d 532, 589 N.Y.S.2d 919; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 248-252, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9). In any event, the evidence adduced at trial amply support......
-
People v. Thompson
...basis for the defendant's resort to deadly physical force (see, People v. Griffin, 207 A.D.2d 844, 616 N.Y.S.2d 628; People v. Lemaire, 187 A.D.2d 532, 533, 589 N.Y.S.2d 919; People v. Mack, 178 A.D.2d 661, 662, 577 N.Y.S.2d 892). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we ......