From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Chun Huen Lam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 8, 1987
131 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

June 8, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's position, the circumstantial evidence adduced at the trial was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was either a gunman or, at the very least, was an accomplice to the codefendant in the murder of the victim (see, People v Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375).

The trial court's denial of the defendant's request that the lesser included offenses of manslaughter in the first and second degrees be charged was not improper. The trial testimony revealed that the victim was shot at close range and sustained 11 bullet wounds, including 4 to the head. In view thereof, no reasonable view of the evidence would have justified a charge of manslaughter in either the first or second degrees (see, People v Scarborough, 49 N.Y.2d 364, 373).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find that it does not require reversal in light of the overwhelming proof of guilt. Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Chun Huen Lam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 8, 1987
131 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Chun Huen Lam

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHUN HUEN LAM, Also…

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

Date published: Jun 8, 1987

Citations

131 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Moore

The defendant's contention that the trial court's charge to the jury was inadequate was not preserved for…

People v. Green

Here, the evidence indicated that the defendant shot the victim in the head at close range when the victim…