People v. Benjamin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Benjamin

124 A.D.3d 808, 1 N.Y.S.3d 364

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Benjamin. Read the opinion of the Court — 105 A.D.3d 926 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 28, 2015·No. 2009-07522·Published

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered December 19, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions of assault in the second degree and burglary in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, 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 prove the defendant’s guilt of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we 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 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we find that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

*809 The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is also unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Clemente, 84 AD3d 829 [2011]; People v Charles, 57 AD3d 556 [2008]; People v Gill, 54 AD3d 965, 966 [2008]; People v Robbins, 48 AD3d 711 [2008]). In any event, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, permissible rhetorical comment, or responsive to the defense counsel’s summation (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]).

Mastro, J.P., Austin, Maltese and Barros, 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, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered December 19, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions of assault in the second degree and burglary in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, 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 prove the defendant’s guilt of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we 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 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we find that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

*809 The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is also unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Clemente, 84 AD3d 829 [2011]; People v Charles, 57 AD3d 556 [2008]; People v Gill, 54 AD3d 965, 966 [2008]; People v Robbins, 48 AD3d 711 [2008]). In any event, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, permissible rhetorical comment, or responsive to the defense counsel’s summation (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]).

Mastro, J.P., Austin, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.

People v. Benjamin, 124 A.D.3d 808, 1 N.Y.S.3d 364 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

124 A.D.3d 808 (People v. Benjamin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related