People v. Haywood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Haywood

13 A.D.3d 392, 785 N.Y.S.2d 532, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14833

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 392 (People v. Haywood) 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. Haywood, 13 A.D.3d 392, 785 N.Y.S.2d 532, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered July 8, 2002, convicting him of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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 unlawful imprisonment in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Mastro 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 Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered July 8, 2002, convicting him of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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 unlawful imprisonment in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Mastro and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 392, 785 N.Y.S.2d 532, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-haywood-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack