People v. Abbott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Abbott

57 A.D.3d 910, 869 N.Y.2d 347

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 23, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 910 (People v. Abbott) 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

People v. Abbott, 57 A.D.3d 910, 869 N.Y.2d 347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the testimony of the confidential informant who made three controlled buys of cocaine from the defendant was not incredible as a matter of law and merely raised issues for resolution by the jury (see People v Calabria, 3 NY3d 80, 82-83 [2004]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an [911]*911independent review of the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799 [1985]).

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

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.E, Angiolillo, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the testimony of the confidential informant who made three controlled buys of cocaine from the defendant was not incredible as a matter of law and merely raised issues for resolution by the jury (see People v Calabria, 3 NY3d 80, 82-83 [2004]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an [911]*911independent review of the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799 [1985]).

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

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.E, Angiolillo, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 910, 869 N.Y.2d 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-abbott-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack