People v. Camacho

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Camacho

305 A.D.2d 229, 758 N.Y.S.2d 492, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5529

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

DecidedMay 15, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 229 (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, 305 A.D.2d 229, 758 N.Y.S.2d 492, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered April 22, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds [230]*230and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility, including the weight to be given to inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The officers had a clear recollection of the facts and the jury properly credited their testimony.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered April 22, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds [230]*230and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility, including the weight to be given to inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The officers had a clear recollection of the facts and the jury properly credited their testimony.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 229, 758 N.Y.S.2d 492, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-camacho-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack