People v. Davis

80 A.D.3d 623, 914 N.Y.S.2d 667
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 11, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 80 A.D.3d 623 (People v. Davis) 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. Davis, 80 A.D.3d 623, 914 N.Y.S.2d 667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered April 6, 2008, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, sodomy in the second degree, criminal sexual act in the second degree (11 counts), rape in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe [624]*624demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention that 13 of the counts of the indictment were rendered duplicitous by trial testimony is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Drysdale, 295 AD2d 533 [2002]), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6]; People v Nash, 77 AD3d 687, 688 [2010]; People v Saintilus, 74 AD3d 996, 997 [2010]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Covello, J.P., Eng, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. DeShields
2019 NY Slip Op 1090 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Davis
109 A.D.3d 998 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 A.D.3d 623, 914 N.Y.S.2d 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-davis-nyappdiv-2011.