People v. Flowers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Flowers

5 A.D.3d 291, 773 N.Y.S.2d 545

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 291 (People v. Flowers) 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. Flowers, 5 A.D.3d 291, 773 N.Y.S.2d 545 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered April 30, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility, including the weight to be given to inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of uncharged crimes, since defendant’s modus operandi was sufficiently distinctive and similar to the charged crime (see People v Beam, 57 NY2d 241 [1982]). Defendant’s remaining arguments concerning this evidence are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered April 30, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility, including the weight to be given to inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of uncharged crimes, since defendant’s modus operandi was sufficiently distinctive and similar to the charged crime (see People v Beam, 57 NY2d 241 [1982]). Defendant’s remaining arguments concerning this evidence are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 291, 773 N.Y.S.2d 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-flowers-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack