KING, ANTHONY, PEOPLE v

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 5, 2016
DocketKA 15-00545
StatusPublished

This text of KING, ANTHONY, PEOPLE v (KING, ANTHONY, PEOPLE v) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
KING, ANTHONY, PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

74 KA 15-00545 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY KING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (EVAN B. HANNAY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered July 12, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction because his motion to dismiss was not specifically directed at the ground advanced on appeal (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19; see also People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). We note in particular that the jury’s credibility determinations are entitled to great deference “ ‘because those who see and hear the witnesses can assess their credibility and reliability in a manner that is far superior to that of reviewing judges who must rely on the printed record’ ” (People v Ange, 37 AD3d 1143, 1144, lv denied 9 NY3d 839, quoting People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890).

Entered: February 5, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Danielson
880 N.E.2d 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
People v. Gray
652 N.E.2d 919 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
Promenade v. Schindler Elevator Corporation
872 N.E.2d 867 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
People v. Lane
860 N.E.2d 61 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Hawkins
900 N.E.2d 946 (New York Court of Appeals, 2008)
People v. Bleakley
508 N.E.2d 672 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
People v. Ange
37 A.D.3d 1143 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
KING, ANTHONY, PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-anthony-people-v-nyappdiv-2016.