Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jose MATIAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven Barrett, J.), rendered June 2, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 25 years to life, to run concurrently with a term of 5 to 15 years for the weapon possession conviction, unanimously affirmed.
The trial court properly declined to charge the jury on justification. The only evidence supporting such an instruction was defendant's vague statement to the police that the “older one” was advancing towards him with a knife while defendant and his friend were armed with guns. Moreover, there was ample opportunity for defendant to retreat from the apartment (People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299, 456 N.Y.S.2d 677, 442 N.E.2d 1188). Although a knife was recovered, the circumstances of its recovery did not support defendant's contentions.
The court also properly declined to deliver an intoxication charge. Defendant was not entitled to such a charge based on a witness's testimony that he appeared “drunk” and defendant's post-arrest statement to the police that he had ingested one tab of mescaline and some alcohol and had smoked marijuana prior to the shooting, since there was no evidence tending to corroborate his claim of intoxication such as the quantity or quality of the marijuana and alcohol nor any expert testimony regarding the effect of mescaline or its duration (People v. Gaines, 83 N.Y.2d 925, 615 N.Y.S.2d 309, 638 N.E.2d 954).
We perceive no abuse of the sentencing discretion.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: January 21, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)