People v. Cade

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cade

167 A.D.2d 552, 562 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14277

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 552 (People v. Cade) 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. Cade, 167 A.D.2d 552, 562 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14277 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Parlo, J.), rendered January 25, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt in view of inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution’s two main witnesses. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Rosenblatt, 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, Queens County (Parlo, J.), rendered January 25, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt in view of inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution’s two main witnesses. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 552, 562 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cade-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack