People v. Harrison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harrison

19 A.D.3d 705, 797 N.Y.S.2d 298

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

DecidedJune 27, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 705 (People v. Harrison) 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. Harrison, 19 A.D.3d 705, 797 N.Y.S.2d 298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme [706]*706Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered October 24, 2000, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the court improperly marshaled evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bacchus, 183 AD2d 720 [1992]; People v McDonald, 144 AD2d 701, 702 [1988]), and in any event, is without merit (see CPL 300.10 [2]; People v Turton, 221 AD2d 671 [1995]; People v Montana, 192 AD2d 623 [1993]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court marshaled the evidence in an evenhanded manner and did not give undue emphasis to the People’s contentions (see People v O’Neal, 12 AD3d 620, 621 [2004]). The court emphasized that identification must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, instructed the jury that its recollection of the evidence was controlling, and reminded the jury that it was the exclusive judge of credibility (see People v Snyder, 294 AD2d 381, 382 [2002]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Spolzino, 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 [706]*706Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered October 24, 2000, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the court improperly marshaled evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bacchus, 183 AD2d 720 [1992]; People v McDonald, 144 AD2d 701, 702 [1988]), and in any event, is without merit (see CPL 300.10 [2]; People v Turton, 221 AD2d 671 [1995]; People v Montana, 192 AD2d 623 [1993]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court marshaled the evidence in an evenhanded manner and did not give undue emphasis to the People’s contentions (see People v O’Neal, 12 AD3d 620, 621 [2004]). The court emphasized that identification must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, instructed the jury that its recollection of the evidence was controlling, and reminded the jury that it was the exclusive judge of credibility (see People v Snyder, 294 AD2d 381, 382 [2002]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 705, 797 N.Y.S.2d 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harrison-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack