People v. Everett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Everett

234 A.D.2d 915, 651 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13636

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 915 (People v. Everett) 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. Everett, 234 A.D.2d 915, 651 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. He contends that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence because the only proof that he intentionally shot the victim was the contradictory testimony of an eyewitness who was biased. We disagree. That eyewitness testimony, though inconsistent in some respects, was not incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Bell, 190 AD2d 1032, lv denied 81 NY2d 881; People v Germeo, 188 AD2d 1027; People v Christian [appeal No. 1], 139 AD2d 896, lv denied 71 NY2d 1024), and the credibility of the witness and the weight to be accorded the testimony were matters for jury resolution (see, People v Gruttola, 43 NY2d 116, 122; People v Green, 219 AD2d 856). Although a contrary verdict would not have been unreasonable, we perceive no reason to disturb the jury verdict (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The remaining contention that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe lacks merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present— Denman, P. J., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. He contends that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence because the only proof that he intentionally shot the victim was the contradictory testimony of an eyewitness who was biased. We disagree. That eyewitness testimony, though inconsistent in some respects, was not incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Bell, 190 AD2d 1032, lv denied 81 NY2d 881; People v Germeo, 188 AD2d 1027; People v Christian [appeal No. 1], 139 AD2d 896, lv denied 71 NY2d 1024), and the credibility of the witness and the weight to be accorded the testimony were matters for jury resolution (see, People v Gruttola, 43 NY2d 116, 122; People v Green, 219 AD2d 856). Although a contrary verdict would not have been unreasonable, we perceive no reason to disturb the jury verdict (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The remaining contention that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe lacks merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present— Denman, P. J., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 915, 651 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-everett-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack