People v. Cox

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Staffieri

    251 A.D.2d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 11 times

    Prior threats and assaults may support a claim of duress at the time of the crime ( see, People v. Lane, 112 A.D.2d 247, 248, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 920; People v. Amato, 99 A.D.2d 495), but only when combined with a present and immediate compulsion ( see, People v. Tenace, supra, at 593). Here, even if the prior abuse or threats carried over to the time of the crime, there nonetheless was insufficient proof that the threatened harm was imminent ( see, Penal Law § 40.00; People v. Cox, 207 A.D.2d 995, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1010; People v. Tayeh, supra, at 1047; People v. Brown, supra, at 513; cf., People v. Hendrix, 199 A.D.2d 643, 644, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 806). Defendant admitted that she was able to separate herself from her husband throughout much of the time frame of each incident ( see, People v. Vespa, 165 A.D.2d 679, 680, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 992; People v. Ramjohn, 128 A.D.2d 904, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 654; People v. Lane, supra, at 248; People v. Campos, 108 A.D.2d 751, 752; see generally, Penal Law § 40.00; People v. Amato, supra, at 496).

  2. People v. Karian

    247 A.D.2d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    In any event, there was no basis for submission of the duress defense to the jury. Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant ( see, People v. Farnsworth, 65 N.Y.2d 734), the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant "was coerced * * * by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force upon him" (Penal Law § 40.00; see, People v. Christopher R., 220 A.D.2d 781; People v. Cox, 207 A.D.2d 995; cf., People v. Jenkins, 214 A.D.2d 584). The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

  3. People v. Christopher

    220 A.D.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 2 times

    Its determination is entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed when, as here, it is supported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Moreover, the jury properly rejected the affirmative defense of duress because the defendant's testimony failed to establish that he was coerced to escape by the "use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force upon him" (Penal Law § 40.00; People v. Cox, 207 A.D.2d 995; People v. Rosario, 186 A.D.2d 598; People v. Brown, 68 A.D.2d 503, 513). We find that the defendant's sentence is neither unduly harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).