People v. Bowyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bowyer

91 A.D.3d 1338, 937 N.Y.S.2d 661

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 1338 (People v. Bowyer) 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. Bowyer, 91 A.D.3d 1338, 937 N.Y.S.2d 661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of arson in the second degree (Penal Law § 150.15). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant’s contention that the [1339]*1339verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Although a different result would not have been unreasonable, it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the testimony, including the conflicting inferences that may be drawn therefrom, the weight it should be accorded (see generally id.). The People presented evidence establishing that the fire was neither accidental nor the result of natural causes, and they presented evidence that defendant had both an opportunity and a motive to set the fire (see People v Gardner, 26 AD3d 741, 741-742 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 848 [2006] ). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Scudder, PJ., Smith, Sconiers, Gorski and Martoche, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of arson in the second degree (Penal Law § 150.15). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant’s contention that the [1339]*1339verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Although a different result would not have been unreasonable, it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the testimony, including the conflicting inferences that may be drawn therefrom, the weight it should be accorded (see generally id.). The People presented evidence establishing that the fire was neither accidental nor the result of natural causes, and they presented evidence that defendant had both an opportunity and a motive to set the fire (see People v Gardner, 26 AD3d 741, 741-742 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 848 [2006] ). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Scudder, PJ., Smith, Sconiers, Gorski and Martoche, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 1338, 937 N.Y.S.2d 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bowyer-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack