People v. Caldavado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Caldavado

78 A.D.3d 962, 910 N.Y.S.2d 673

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

DecidedNovember 16, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 78 A.D.3d 962 (People v. Caldavado) 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. Caldavado, 78 A.D.3d 962, 910 N.Y.S.2d 673 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McCann, J.), rendered April 1, 2009, convicting her of assault in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[963]*963Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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 establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, 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 [2007]), we nevertheless 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, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting a PowerPoint presentation as to the injuries associated with shaken baby syndrome and in allowing an expert witness to shake a doll in order to demonstrate the force necessary to inflict shaken baby syndrome, as the probative value of the presentation outweighed its prejudicial effect (see People v Sulayao, 58 AD3d 769, 770 [2009]; People v Mora, 57 AD3d 571, 572 [2008]; People v Yates, 290 AD2d 888, 889-890 [2002]). Moreover, any prejudice was minimized by the court’s limiting instructions to the jury (see People v Sulayao, 58 AD3d at 770).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Covello, Florio and Belen, 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 (McCann, J.), rendered April 1, 2009, convicting her of assault in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[963]*963Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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 establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, 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 [2007]), we nevertheless 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, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting a PowerPoint presentation as to the injuries associated with shaken baby syndrome and in allowing an expert witness to shake a doll in order to demonstrate the force necessary to inflict shaken baby syndrome, as the probative value of the presentation outweighed its prejudicial effect (see People v Sulayao, 58 AD3d 769, 770 [2009]; People v Mora, 57 AD3d 571, 572 [2008]; People v Yates, 290 AD2d 888, 889-890 [2002]). Moreover, any prejudice was minimized by the court’s limiting instructions to the jury (see People v Sulayao, 58 AD3d at 770).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Covello, Florio and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 962, 910 N.Y.S.2d 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-caldavado-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack