People v. Camacho

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Camacho

191 A.D.2d 451, 594 N.Y.S.2d 56

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 451 (People v. Camacho) 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. Camacho, 191 A.D.2d 451, 594 N.Y.S.2d 56 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cirigliano, J.), rendered June 6, 1991, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree (two counts), and grand larceny [452]*452in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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. Based on the victim’s testimony that he was cut badly and the cut bled, the jury could reasonably infer that he sustained a "physical injury” as defined by Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (cf., People v Rojas, 61 NY2d 726; People v Gonzalez, 175 AD2d 137, 138). Moreover, 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]). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, 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 (Cirigliano, J.), rendered June 6, 1991, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree (two counts), and grand larceny [452]*452in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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. Based on the victim’s testimony that he was cut badly and the cut bled, the jury could reasonably infer that he sustained a "physical injury” as defined by Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (cf., People v Rojas, 61 NY2d 726; People v Gonzalez, 175 AD2d 137, 138). Moreover, 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]). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 451, 594 N.Y.S.2d 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-camacho-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack