People v. Garris

196 A.D.2d 724, 602 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8601
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 21, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 196 A.D.2d 724 (People v. Garris) 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. Garris, 196 A.D.2d 724, 602 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered November 6, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of 2 Vs to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932), we find that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict finding defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of assault in the second degree. Such evidence included the testimony of the victim that defendant repeatedly struck her and kicked her in the head, the testimony of the neighborhood resident who witnessed the assault and had called 911, the testimony of the physician who examined the victim that her injuries were consistent with being kicked in the head with a boot, and the testimony of the [725]*725police officer concerning defendant’s incriminating statements. Moreover, upon an independent review of the facts, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). The issues raised by defendant concerning the credibility of the victim, including those that arose from his own testimony concerning the circumstances of the altercation and his intent to cause physical injury, were properly placed before the jury, and, after considering the relative force of the conflicting testimony and the competing inferences that may be drawn therefrom, we find no reason on the record before us to disturb the determination of the fact finder. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Trichilo
230 A.D.2d 926 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
196 A.D.2d 724, 602 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-garris-nyappdiv-1993.