People v. Burrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burrell

127 A.D.2d 675, 511 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43163

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 675 (People v. Burrell) 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. Burrell, 127 A.D.2d 675, 511 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43163 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered May 2, 1985, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621; People v Augustave, 123 AD2d 323). The mere fact that only one of the five complaining witnesses was able to provide a positive identification of the defendant as their assailant does not provide a basis to disturb the verdict. Moreover, the jury was entitled to resolve any discrepancies in the witnesses’ testimony in favor of the People, and to reject the evidence presented by the defendant as to his alibi defense (see, People v Contes, supra; People v Augustave, supra).

We also find no merit to the defendant’s other contention. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Niehoff, 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 (Owens, J.), rendered May 2, 1985, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621; People v Augustave, 123 AD2d 323). The mere fact that only one of the five complaining witnesses was able to provide a positive identification of the defendant as their assailant does not provide a basis to disturb the verdict. Moreover, the jury was entitled to resolve any discrepancies in the witnesses’ testimony in favor of the People, and to reject the evidence presented by the defendant as to his alibi defense (see, People v Contes, supra; People v Augustave, supra).

We also find no merit to the defendant’s other contention. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 675, 511 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burrell-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack