People v. Daily

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Daily

231 A.D.2d 462, 647 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9406

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 24, 1996·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered July 12, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree and burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 71/2 to 15 years and 31/2 to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s guilt was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The complainant’s testimony, credited by the jury, that defendant, a longtime friend of the complainant’s brother, arrived at her apartment, forced his way into the apartment and attacked her sexually, was sufficient to convict defendant of the rape and burglary charges. Any inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony were for the jury to consider (see, People v Whitley, 211 AD2d 528, lv denied 85 NY2d 982), and we see no reason to disturb its verdict. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered July 12, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree and burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 71/2 to 15 years and 31/2 to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s guilt was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The complainant’s testimony, credited by the jury, that defendant, a longtime friend of the complainant’s brother, arrived at her apartment, forced his way into the apartment and attacked her sexually, was sufficient to convict defendant of the rape and burglary charges. Any inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony were for the jury to consider (see, People v Whitley, 211 AD2d 528, lv denied 85 NY2d 982), and we see no reason to disturb its verdict. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

People v. Daily, 231 A.D.2d 462, 647 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9406 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

231 A.D.2d 462 (People v. Daily) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related