People v. Cumba

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cumba

265 A.D.2d 854, 695 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9933

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 854 (People v. Cumba) 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. Cumba, 265 A.D.2d 854, 695 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9933 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence adduced at trial is legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt of assault in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 20.00, 120.10 [1]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant solicited the shooter, drove the shooter to the scene and lured the victim outside while the shooter was lying in wait (see, People v Rossey, 89 NY2d 970). “The fact that the evidence might be subject to an interpretation different from that credited by the jury” does not warrant the conclusion that the

[855]*855People failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Moore, 172 AD2d 855, lv denied 78 NY2d 970). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Balio, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence adduced at trial is legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt of assault in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 20.00, 120.10 [1]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant solicited the shooter, drove the shooter to the scene and lured the victim outside while the shooter was lying in wait (see, People v Rossey, 89 NY2d 970). “The fact that the evidence might be subject to an interpretation different from that credited by the jury” does not warrant the conclusion that the

[855]*855People failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Moore, 172 AD2d 855, lv denied 78 NY2d 970). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 854, 695 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cumba-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack