People v. Benjamin

Apr 25, 2005
Versions:17 A.D.3d 688
793 N.Y.S.2d 547
2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4351

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant‘s contention that his statements to law enforcement officials were rendered involuntary as a result of his intoxication is without merit. Intoxication alone is insufficient to render a statement involuntary (see People v Roth, 139 AD2d 605, 606 [1988]). Only where it is demonstrated that the defendant was intoxicated to a degree of mania or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements is suppression warranted (see People v Schompert, 19 NY2d 300, 305 [1967], cert denied 389 US 874 [1967]; People v Shields, 295 AD2d 374 [2002]; People v Perry, 144 AD2d 706 [1988]; People v Roth, supra). In this case, the evidence failed to establish that the defendant was intoxicated to such a degree.

The defendant‘s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Santos, 86 NY2d 869 [1995]; People v Carranza, 306 AD2d 351 [2003], affd 3 NY3d 729). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant‘s remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.P., S. Miller, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.