People v. Boulware

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Boulware

68 A.D.3d 448, 888 N.Y.2d 882

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

DecidedDecember 3, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 448 (People v. Boulware) 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. Boulware, 68 A.D.3d 448, 888 N.Y.2d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations, including its rejection of defendant’s testimony that each of the two incidents was a drug-related transaction instead of a robbery.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations, including its rejection of defendant’s testimony that each of the two incidents was a drug-related transaction instead of a robbery.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 448, 888 N.Y.2d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-boulware-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack