People v. Coker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Coker

190 A.D.2d 814, 593 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1452

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 190 A.D.2d 814 (People v. Coker) 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. Coker, 190 A.D.2d 814, 593 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), rendered January 4, 1991, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove that the officer whom he struck in the head suffered physical injury. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the conviction. The victim testified that he became dizzy from the blow and could not drive his vehicle for 20 minutes, and that he was prescribed pain medication for the throbbing in his head. The victim also testified that he missed work and suffered stiffness of his neck and pounding of the head for a two to three week period as a result of the injury and that the bump on his head swelled from the size of a golfball to the size of half of a softball.

The defendant also argues that the victim’s testimony was not credible, and that the victim fabricated his account of the incident in order to gain revenge for the alleged firing of the victim by the defendant some seven years ago, and to provide a defense for a lawsuit filed against the victim by the defendant. However, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). 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]). The defendant’s contention regarding the adequacy of the jury charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v James, 75 NY2d 874), and [815]*815in any event, is without merit. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Pizzuto and Santucci, 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 County Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), rendered January 4, 1991, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove that the officer whom he struck in the head suffered physical injury. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the conviction. The victim testified that he became dizzy from the blow and could not drive his vehicle for 20 minutes, and that he was prescribed pain medication for the throbbing in his head. The victim also testified that he missed work and suffered stiffness of his neck and pounding of the head for a two to three week period as a result of the injury and that the bump on his head swelled from the size of a golfball to the size of half of a softball.

The defendant also argues that the victim’s testimony was not credible, and that the victim fabricated his account of the incident in order to gain revenge for the alleged firing of the victim by the defendant some seven years ago, and to provide a defense for a lawsuit filed against the victim by the defendant. However, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). 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]). The defendant’s contention regarding the adequacy of the jury charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v James, 75 NY2d 874), and [815]*815in any event, is without merit. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 814, 593 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-coker-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack