From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mallen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 1998
247 A.D.2d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of murder in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 ( see, CPL 470.15). The People proved that the defendant, although drinking heavily prior to the murder, was able to form the requisite intent to kill, and there is no basis in the record for disturbing the jury's verdict ( see, People v. Butler, 84 N.Y.2d 627; People v. Zambrana, 158 A.D.2d 736; People v. Goodman, 152 A.D.2d 705).

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in not submitting to the jury the crime of manslaughter in the first degree as a lesser-included offense of the crime of murder in the second degree. However, a defendant who, as here, does not request the submission of a lesser-included offense cannot claim that the court's failure to so charge was error ( see, People v. Goros, 224 A.D.2d 444).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court correctly weighed the competing factors when it ruled that it would allow the prosecutor to inquire into the defendant's prior conviction for attempted resisting arrest ( see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Questions concerning other crimes are not automatically precluded simply because the manner in which the prior crime was committed is similar to the facts of the instant crime ( People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882; People v. Hendrix, 44 N.Y.2d 658; People v. Roman, 190 A.D.2d 831; People v. Carter, 212 A.D.2d 722). Accordingly, the trial court's Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion ( see, People v. Pavao, supra; People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274.

Thompson, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Mallen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 1998
247 A.D.2d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Mallen

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICHARD MALLEN…

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

Date published: Feb 9, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 343

Citing Cases

People v. Laguerre

Moreover, the prosecution offered expert testimony to rebut the defense expert that the defendant did not…

People v. Gardella

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence adduced at the trial, viewed in the light most favorable…