People v. Auguste

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Auguste

302 A.D.2d 601, 755 N.Y.S.2d 314

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 601 (People v. Auguste) 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. Auguste, 302 A.D.2d 601, 755 N.Y.S.2d 314 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by [602]*602the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered October 17, 2000, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the People failed to prove that he knowingly possessed a controlled substance is without merit. 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 (see People v Nkemakolam, 212 AD2d 813 [1995]; see also People v Hine, 254 AD2d 43 [1998]). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84 [1903]). It should be given great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Altman, J.P., Florio, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by [602]*602the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered October 17, 2000, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the People failed to prove that he knowingly possessed a controlled substance is without merit. 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 (see People v Nkemakolam, 212 AD2d 813 [1995]; see also People v Hine, 254 AD2d 43 [1998]). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84 [1903]). It should be given great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Altman, J.P., Florio, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 601, 755 N.Y.S.2d 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-auguste-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack