People v. Coney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Coney

2017 NY Slip Op 37, 146 A.D.3d 429, 45 N.Y.S.3d 36

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 2017

Docket2633 1913/11

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 37 (People v. Coney) 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. Coney, 2017 NY Slip Op 37, 146 A.D.3d 429, 45 N.Y.S.3d 36 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Villegas, J.), rendered March 31, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree as a hate crime, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its evaluation of the discrepancies in the victim’s version of the events (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence supported the hate crime element of the offense.

After defendant elicited a portion of a statement made by the victim after the assault that implicated a person other than defendant, the court properly permitted the People to elicit another part of the same statement, which also implicated defendant and others. The eliciting of the additional portion of the statement “did no more than to explain, clarify and fully elicit a [statement] only partially examined by the defense” (People v Ochoa, 14 NY3d 180, 186 [2010]). The rule against *430 bolstering by prior consistent statements does not apply to the introduction of additional portions of a statement that has been elicited in part (People v Torre, 42 NY2d 1036, 1037 [1977]).

Concur — Saxe, J.P., Moskowitz, Gische, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Villegas, J.), rendered March 31, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree as a hate crime, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its evaluation of the discrepancies in the victim’s version of the events (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence supported the hate crime element of the offense.

After defendant elicited a portion of a statement made by the victim after the assault that implicated a person other than defendant, the court properly permitted the People to elicit another part of the same statement, which also implicated defendant and others. The eliciting of the additional portion of the statement “did no more than to explain, clarify and fully elicit a [statement] only partially examined by the defense” (People v Ochoa, 14 NY3d 180, 186 [2010]). The rule against *430 bolstering by prior consistent statements does not apply to the introduction of additional portions of a statement that has been elicited in part (People v Torre, 42 NY2d 1036, 1037 [1977]).

Concur — Saxe, J.P., Moskowitz, Gische, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 37, 146 A.D.3d 429, 45 N.Y.S.3d 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-coney-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack