People v. Batts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Batts

111 A.D.2d 761, 490 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50006

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

DecidedJune 3, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 761 (People v. Batts) 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. Batts, 111 A.D.2d 761, 490 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50006 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), rendered October 6,1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the People’s case, since the proof adduced at trial was not only legally sufficient to establish every element of the [762]*762crimes charged but was, in fact, overwhelming. We find nothing incredible as a matter of law about the identification testimony of the complainant. The accuracy of an eyewitness identification is a question of fact to be resolved by the jury (People v Dukes, 97 AD2d 445).

Further, under the circumstances, defendant’s sentence was neither unduly harsh nor excessive. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), rendered October 6,1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the People’s case, since the proof adduced at trial was not only legally sufficient to establish every element of the [762]*762crimes charged but was, in fact, overwhelming. We find nothing incredible as a matter of law about the identification testimony of the complainant. The accuracy of an eyewitness identification is a question of fact to be resolved by the jury (People v Dukes, 97 AD2d 445).

Further, under the circumstances, defendant’s sentence was neither unduly harsh nor excessive. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 761, 490 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-batts-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack