People v. Martinez
| Decision Date | 28 November 1988 |
| Citation | 144 A.D.2d 699,535 N.Y.S.2d 3 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent-Appellant, v. Eduardo MARTINEZ, Appellant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Karen M. Kalikow, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Michael O'Brien, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Before KUNZEMAN, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, RUBIN and KOOPER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered March 20, 1986, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and upon an order of the same court, dated February 27, 1986, reducing the defendant's conviction of murder in the second degree to manslaughter in the first degree and imposing sentence, and the cross appeal by the People from the order of the same court, dated February 27, 1986, which reduced the defendant's conviction of murder in the second degree to manslaughter in the first degree.
ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the imposition of sentence with respect to the defendant's conviction of murder in the second degree.
During the early morning hours of New Year's Day 1985 the body of Rogelio Segura was found in an alleyway next to a house located at 87-36 162nd Street in Queens. He had been stabbed five times in the head and three times in the back. Pursuant to a general investigation into Segura's death, the police asked the defendant and the codefendant Hilt if they had any pertinent information. In oral and videotaped statements made to the police and District Attorney's Office, the defendant conceded that he was a pimp and that the codefendant was his prostitute and that they had been working the 162nd Street area on New Year's Eve into the early morning hours of New Year's Day. Because business was slow, the defendant and his codefendant decided to go home early. Before leaving the area, the codefendant went into the alleyway next to the house at 87-36 162nd Street to urinate. She stated that when she pulled down her pants, the decedent rushed into the alleyway, put his hand in his jacket as if he had a gun and told her that he was going to rape her. She then called to the defendant who ran into the alley and stabbed the decedent in the face and head. The codefendant told the police and Assistant District Attorney that she then grabbed the knife and stabbed the decedent two or three more times in the back. At the trial, however, the codefendant stated that she never stabbed Segura. The defendants then fled to the apartment they shared. The codefendant took the knife, placed it in a black leather case and buried it in a back yard located at 145th Street and Jamaica Avenue.
Although the jury was provided with a justification charge as it related to the defendant's claim that he acted in defense of the codefendant, the jury rejected the justification defense and convicted the defendant of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The codefendant was acquitted of all charges. After the verdict was rendered, the trial court granted the defendant's motion insofar as it was to set aside the conviction of murder in the second degree on the ground that the People failed to prove that the defendant intended to cause the death of Segura beyond a reasonable doubt.
Viewing the evidence in a 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), 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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15[5] ). The defense of justification was disproven beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Reed, 40 N.Y.2d 204, 386 N.Y.S.2d 371, 352 N.E.2d 558; People v. Reyes, 116 A.D.2d 602, 497 N.Y.S.2d 463, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 949, 502 N.Y.S.2d 1042, 494 N.E.2d 127; People v. Davis, 111 A.D.2d 252, 489 N.Y.S.2d 97). The jury was presented with conflicting versions of how and why the decedent was killed. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 68 N.E. 112). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Clark
...182 ; People v. Norris, 98 A.D.3d 586, 949 N.Y.S.2d 472 ; People v. Hollman, 98 A.D.3d at 585, 949 N.Y.S.2d 485 ; People v. Martinez, 144 A.D.2d 699, 701, 535 N.Y.S.2d 3 ; People v. Milea, 112 A.D.2d 1011, 1013, 492 N.Y.S.2d 650 ). Additionally, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct a......
-
People v. White
...probative value, constituted circumstantial evidence of her consciousness of guilt (see, People v. Williams, supra; People v. Martinez, 144 A.D.2d 699, 701, 535 N.Y.S.2d 3). The defendant's sentence was proper (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d We have considered the defenda......
-
People v. Praylor
...664; People v. Longo, 182 A.D.2d 1019, 582 N.Y.S.2d 832, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 906, 588 N.Y.S.2d 831, 602 N.E.2d 239; People v. Martinez, 144 A.D.2d 699, 535 N.Y.S.2d 3, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 923, 539 N.Y.S.2d 308, 536 N.E.2d 637). We also reject the contention of defendant that, as a residen......
-
People v. Baird
...People v. Gagnon, 150 A.D.2d 918, 919, 541 N.Y.S.2d 625, affd. 75 N.Y.2d 736, 551 N.Y.S.2d 195, 550 N.E.2d 448; People v. Martinez, 144 A.D.2d 699, 701, 535 N.Y.S.2d 3, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 923, 539 N.Y.S.2d 308, 536 N.E.2d Judgment affirmed. MAHONEY, P.J., CASEY, WEISS and LEVINE, JJ., con......