People v. Cheng

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cheng

232 A.D.2d 651, 648 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11292

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 651 (People v. Cheng) 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. Cheng, 232 A.D.2d 651, 648 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11292 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered July 12, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second 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 that the defendant shared a "community of purpose” with the shooter, so as to be held responsible for the acts of the principal (see, People v Armistead, 178 AD2d 607; People v McClary, 138 AD2d 413). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Furthermore, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s CPL 330.30 motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of newly discovered evidence, where the [652]*652sole basis for this motion was an eyewitness’s recantation of his trial testimony (see, People v Salemi, 309 NY 208, cert denied 350 US 950; People v Baxley, 194 AD2d 681, mod on other grounds 84 NY2d 208).

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

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Hart, 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 (Cooperman, J.), rendered July 12, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second 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 that the defendant shared a "community of purpose” with the shooter, so as to be held responsible for the acts of the principal (see, People v Armistead, 178 AD2d 607; People v McClary, 138 AD2d 413). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Furthermore, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s CPL 330.30 motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of newly discovered evidence, where the [652]*652sole basis for this motion was an eyewitness’s recantation of his trial testimony (see, People v Salemi, 309 NY 208, cert denied 350 US 950; People v Baxley, 194 AD2d 681, mod on other grounds 84 NY2d 208).

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

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 651, 648 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cheng-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack