From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 10, 2002
300 A.D.2d 78 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2499

December 10, 2002.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael Gross, J.), rendered February 4, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 22 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Hae Jin Liu, for respondent.

Marie A. Corliss, for defendant-appellant.

Before: NARDELLI, J.P., TOM, MAZZARELLI, BUCKLEY, ELLERIN, JJ.


The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The jury reasonably could have inferred intent to cause serious physical injury based on evidence of defendant's conduct before, during and after the shooting of the victim, including the fact that defendant followed the victim and another person into a store, shoved the victim against a counter, turned and pointed a gun at her chest and fired a shot, which struck the victim in the arm as she pushed the gun away (see People v. Kenward, 266 A.D.2d 155). Defendant's assertion that the gun discharged only because the victim pushed it away is unsupported by the record.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 10, 2002
300 A.D.2d 78 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Davis

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. CHARLES DAVIS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 10, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 78 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
751 N.Y.S.2d 186

Citing Cases

Davis v. Greene

The jury reasonably could have inferred intent to cause serious physical injury based on evidence of…

State v. Cabrera

We further find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing…