From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Drake

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 9, 1995
216 A.D.2d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 9, 1995

Appeal from the Erie County Court, D'Amico, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree following a jury trial, defendant argues that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence because he met his burden of establishing the defense of extreme emotional disturbance. We disagree. Whether the defense applies is largely discretionary (see, People v. Casassa, 49 N.Y.2d 668, 679-680, cert denied 449 U.S. 842), and the jury was not required to accept defendant's testimony. It was entitled to find that defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing the defense (see, People v. Hartsock, 189 A.D.2d 991; see generally, People v. Casassa, supra, at 678-680).

The contention that prosecutorial misconduct on summation deprived defendant of a fair trial is unpreserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [a]). We conclude that defendant's sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.


Summaries of

People v. Drake

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 9, 1995
216 A.D.2d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Drake

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT DRAKE, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 9, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
629 N.Y.S.2d 361

Citing Cases

People v. Wylie

There is no support in the record for defendant's further contention that defense counsel should have…

People v. Nary

Among other things, the jury "was entitled to consider the conduct of defendant before and after the…