From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 9, 2002
300 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-03077

Argued November 15, 2002.

December 9, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered March 19, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (John Gemmill of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and Joseph Huttler of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court's charge on the defense of justification was misleading to the jury. However, the trial court's charge, which followed the Criminal Jury Instructions nearly verbatim (see 1 CJI[NY] 35.15[2][a]), properly instructed the jury on both the subjective and objective factors it was to consider in assessing whether the defendant actually believed that the use of deadly physical force was necessary, and the reasonableness of such belief (see People v. Wesley, 76 N.Y.2d 555; People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96; People v. Santos, 280 A.D.2d 561; People v. Brown, 250 A.D.2d 774; People v. Bernard, 222 A.D.2d 599).

S. MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 9, 2002
300 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Wright

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. RALPH WRIGHT, appellant

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

Date published: Dec 9, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
750 N.Y.S.2d 787

Citing Cases

People v. Varughese

The Supreme Court's supplementary charges on actual presence were not misleading. They supplemented the…

People v. Thompkins

The record reveals, however, that County Court adequately communicated the permissive nature of the inference…