People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Anderson

2017 NY Slip Op 1558, 148 A.D.3d 714, 47 N.Y.S.3d 728

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2017

Docket2014-07600

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1558 (People v. Anderson) 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. Anderson, 2017 NY Slip Op 1558, 148 A.D.3d 714, 47 N.Y.S.3d 728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester *715 County (Warhit, J.), rendered July 15, 2014, convicting him of assault in the second degree and attempted assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). 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 of assault in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see CPL 470.15 [2] [b]). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on this count was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not err in admitting testimony from a police officer about the contents of radio transmissions, as they were admitted to give the jury a complete picture of why police officers were at the scene and to avoid speculation (see People v Nanton, 18 AD3d 671 [2005]; People v Baez, 7 AD3d 633, 633 [2004]; People v Burrus, 182 AD2d 634 [1992]). The trial court’s clear limiting instructions to the jury effectively eliminated any risk of prejudice to the defendant (see People v Nanton, 18 AD3d 671 [2005]; People v Baez, 7 AD3d at 633; People v Burrus, 182 AD2d 634 [1992]). The defendant’s remaining contentions concerning the radio transmission are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

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

Dillon, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and Bar-ros, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester *715 County (Warhit, J.), rendered July 15, 2014, convicting him of assault in the second degree and attempted assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). 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 of assault in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see CPL 470.15 [2] [b]). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on this count was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not err in admitting testimony from a police officer about the contents of radio transmissions, as they were admitted to give the jury a complete picture of why police officers were at the scene and to avoid speculation (see People v Nanton, 18 AD3d 671 [2005]; People v Baez, 7 AD3d 633, 633 [2004]; People v Burrus, 182 AD2d 634 [1992]). The trial court’s clear limiting instructions to the jury effectively eliminated any risk of prejudice to the defendant (see People v Nanton, 18 AD3d 671 [2005]; People v Baez, 7 AD3d at 633; People v Burrus, 182 AD2d 634 [1992]). The defendant’s remaining contentions concerning the radio transmission are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

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

Dillon, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and Bar-ros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1558, 148 A.D.3d 714, 47 N.Y.S.3d 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-anderson-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack