People v. Grant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Grant

54 A.D.3d 967, 864 N.Y.S.2d 134

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 23, 2008·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered May 16, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence on his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Carranza, 306 AD2d 351, 352 [2003], affd 3 NY3d 729 [2004]; People v Rodriguez, 200 AD2d 775 [1994]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. The People presented the requisite evidence establishing that the defendant possessed a loaded operable weapon with the intent to use it unlawfully against another (see People v Hunter, 46 AD3d 1417 [2007]; People v Pricher, 221 AD2d 378 [1995]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention that a detective’s testimony that the victim named the defendant as the shooter was inadmissible as an excited utterance was waived when the defense elicited the same testimony on cross-examination (see People v Holmes, 47 AD3d 946 [2008]; People v Blackman, 13 AD3d 640 [2004]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]).

[968] The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Lifson, J.E, Florio, Eng and Belen, JJ, concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered May 16, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence on his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Carranza, 306 AD2d 351, 352 [2003], affd 3 NY3d 729 [2004]; People v Rodriguez, 200 AD2d 775 [1994]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. The People presented the requisite evidence establishing that the defendant possessed a loaded operable weapon with the intent to use it unlawfully against another (see People v Hunter, 46 AD3d 1417 [2007]; People v Pricher, 221 AD2d 378 [1995]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention that a detective’s testimony that the victim named the defendant as the shooter was inadmissible as an excited utterance was waived when the defense elicited the same testimony on cross-examination (see People v Holmes, 47 AD3d 946 [2008]; People v Blackman, 13 AD3d 640 [2004]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]).

[968] The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Lifson, J.E, Florio, Eng and Belen, JJ, concur.

People v. Grant, 54 A.D.3d 967, 864 N.Y.S.2d 134 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

54 A.D.3d 967 (People v. Grant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related