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. Robert ARTIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered March 7, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 10 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
The evidence disproved defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility (see People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94, 68 N.E. 112). The credible evidence established that the victim did not produce a knife until after defendant had already broken the victim's arm with a bat. Moreover, defendant had the opportunity to retreat from the encounter but failed to do so.
The court properly declined to submit intentional assault in the second degree under a theory of intent to cause physical injury (Penal Law § 120.05 [2] ) or under a theory of recklessness (Penal Law § 120.05[4] ) as lesser included offenses of assault in the first degree since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that he committed either of the lesser offenses but not the greater. There was nothing in either the People's or defendant's version of the incident that would support a reasonable view that defendant acted recklessly or with intent to only cause ordinary physical injury (see People v. Saunders, 210 A.D.2d 164, 620 N.Y.S.2d 356, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 1038, 623 N.Y.S.2d 194, 647 N.E.2d 466; People v. Walker, 168 A.D.2d 983, 564 N.Y.S.2d 929, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 883, 568 N.Y.S.2d 926, 571 N.E.2d 96).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
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: June 17, 2004
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)