Summary
holding that there was legally sufficient evidence at trial to negate the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt where the victim and two witnesses testified that the victim was unarmed when the defendant stabbed him, and defendant testified that he did not know whether the victim had a weapon
Summary of this case from Daughtry v. ConwayOpinion
June 2, 1997
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the prosecution failed to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 250). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to negate the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt. The victim and two eyewitnesses testified that the victim was unarmed when the defendant stabbed him. Moreover, the defendant testified that he did not know whether the victim had a weapon. Accordingly, the evidence was legally sufficient to negate the defendant's claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Whitfield, 221 A.D.2d 953; People v. Desmond, 125 A.D.2d 585).
Furthermore, the defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. The defense counsel vigorously pursued the defendant's claim of self-defense, and succeeded not only in having the defendant's statements to the police suppressed, but also in securing a verdict of not guilty on the most serious charge in the indictment (see generally, People v. Benn, 68 N.Y.2d 941).
The defendant's contention that the sentencing procedures were defective is without merit (see, People v. Bonadie, 151 A.D.2d 686). The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.