People v. Chicchetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chicchetti

29 A.D.3d 918, 814 N.Y.S.2d 542

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

DecidedMay 23, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 918 (People v. Chicchetti) 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. Chicchetti, 29 A.D.3d 918, 814 N.Y.S.2d 542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered March 1, 2004, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction under a theory of accomplice liability is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Seabrooks, 289 AD2d 515 [2001]; see also People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant shared the principal’s culpable mental state and intentionally aided the principal (see People v Rossey, 89 NY2d 970 [1997]; People v Hart, 8 AD3d 402 [2004]; People v Jimenez, 245 AD2d 304 [1997]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]). Adams, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Lifson, 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 (Collini, J.), rendered March 1, 2004, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction under a theory of accomplice liability is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Seabrooks, 289 AD2d 515 [2001]; see also People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant shared the principal’s culpable mental state and intentionally aided the principal (see People v Rossey, 89 NY2d 970 [1997]; People v Hart, 8 AD3d 402 [2004]; People v Jimenez, 245 AD2d 304 [1997]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]). Adams, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 918, 814 N.Y.S.2d 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chicchetti-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack