People v. Howard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Howard

211 A.D.2d 643, 621 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 113

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 643 (People v. Howard) 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. Howard, 211 A.D.2d 643, 621 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rivera, J.), rendered November 10, 1992, convicting him of murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84). Its determination is entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsup[644]*644ported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino and Pizzuto, 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 (Rivera, J.), rendered November 10, 1992, convicting him of murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84). Its determination is entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsup[644]*644ported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 643, 621 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-howard-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack