People v. Herriot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Herriot

294 A.D.2d 599, 742 N.Y.S.2d 887, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5638

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 28, 2002·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered January 4, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellant review his [600]*600contention that the preindictment delay deprived him of due process (see People v Cedeno, 52 NY2d 847, 848; People v Champelle, 144 AD2d 378), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [3]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant acted with depraved indifference (see People v Roe, 74 NY2d 20, 24; People v Smith, 255 AD2d 404, 405; People v Dellemand, 205 AD2d 551, 552). Moreover, 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]). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, 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, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered January 4, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellant review his [600]*600contention that the preindictment delay deprived him of due process (see People v Cedeno, 52 NY2d 847, 848; People v Champelle, 144 AD2d 378), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [3]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant acted with depraved indifference (see People v Roe, 74 NY2d 20, 24; People v Smith, 255 AD2d 404, 405; People v Dellemand, 205 AD2d 551, 552). Moreover, 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]). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

People v. Herriot, 294 A.D.2d 599, 742 N.Y.S.2d 887, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

294 A.D.2d 599 (People v. Herriot) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related