People v. Holland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Holland

147 A.D.2d 919, 537 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1188

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A.D.2d 919 (People v. Holland) 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. Holland, 147 A.D.2d 919, 537 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree and burglary in the second degree. In his brief he contends that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress identification testimony of the complainant because the photo array and lineup procedures were suggestive. At oral argument, however, it was conceded that the issue was whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, not whether there was any impropriety in obtaining the identification evidence.

Notwithstanding the many contradictions in the testimony of the complaining witness, we do not conclude that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Having weighed the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of the conflicting inferences to be [920]*920drawn therefrom (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495), we do not find that "the trier of fact has failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded”.

Although the conduct of the prosecutor was objectionable, the court reprimanded her firmly and promptly (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399), and such conduct was not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J. — rape, first degree; burglary, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree and burglary in the second degree. In his brief he contends that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress identification testimony of the complainant because the photo array and lineup procedures were suggestive. At oral argument, however, it was conceded that the issue was whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, not whether there was any impropriety in obtaining the identification evidence.

Notwithstanding the many contradictions in the testimony of the complaining witness, we do not conclude that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Having weighed the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of the conflicting inferences to be [920]*920drawn therefrom (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495), we do not find that "the trier of fact has failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded”.

Although the conduct of the prosecutor was objectionable, the court reprimanded her firmly and promptly (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399), and such conduct was not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J. — rape, first degree; burglary, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 919, 537 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-holland-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack