People v. Irizarri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Irizarri

82 A.D.3d 650, 919 N.Y.2d 328

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 650 (People v. Irizarri) 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. Irizarri, 82 A.D.3d 650, 919 N.Y.2d 328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. In performing weight of evidence review, we may consider the jury’s verdict on other counts (see People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557, 563 n [2000]). Nevertheless, we find that the jury’s mixed verdict does not warrant a different result. “Where a jury verdict is not repugnant, it is imprudent to speculate concerning the factual determinations that underlay the verdict because what might appear to be an irrational verdict may actually constitute a jury’s permissible exercise of mercy or leniency” (People v Horne, 97 NY2d 404, 413 [2002]; see also People v Hemmings, 2 NY3d 1, 5 n [2004]). Moreover, aside from considerations of leniency, the jury could have found that the victim’s testimony was corroborated as to the child endangerment count but not as to the other charges. Concur — Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Catterson, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. In performing weight of evidence review, we may consider the jury’s verdict on other counts (see People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557, 563 n [2000]). Nevertheless, we find that the jury’s mixed verdict does not warrant a different result. “Where a jury verdict is not repugnant, it is imprudent to speculate concerning the factual determinations that underlay the verdict because what might appear to be an irrational verdict may actually constitute a jury’s permissible exercise of mercy or leniency” (People v Horne, 97 NY2d 404, 413 [2002]; see also People v Hemmings, 2 NY3d 1, 5 n [2004]). Moreover, aside from considerations of leniency, the jury could have found that the victim’s testimony was corroborated as to the child endangerment count but not as to the other charges. Concur — Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Catterson, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 650, 919 N.Y.2d 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-irizarri-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack