People v. Jean-Louis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jean-Louis

272 A.D.2d 626, 709 N.Y.S.2d 101, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6080

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 626 (People v. Jean-Louis) 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. Jean-Louis, 272 A.D.2d 626, 709 N.Y.S.2d 101, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6080 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Finnegan, J.), rendered September 17, 1997, convicting him of murder in the [627]*627second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second 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 letters allegedly written by the defendant to Kim Henderson, an accomplice, were properly admitted into evidence. Circumstantial evidence may satisfy the requirement that a writing be authenticated before it may be introduced (see, People v Dunbar Contr. Co., 215 NY 416). At trial it was established that, in the letters, the defendant requested that Henderson plead the Fifth Amendment to prevent the District Attorney from obtaining a conviction against the defendant in the instant case. The letters also contained the defendant’s nickname, “DD”, and referred to another accomplice, Phil Johnson, by his nicknames “Cuzo” and “Ilflay”. The letters were sent in response to letters Henderson had mailed to the defendant. The foregoing constituted ample evidence to authenticate the letters (see, People v Murray, 122 AD2d 81).

The defendant’s contentions regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence are largely unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Backus, 175 AD2d 248). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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, resolutions of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). 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). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied the the verdict of guilt 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. Joy, J. P., Gold-stein, H. Miller 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, Queens County (Finnegan, J.), rendered September 17, 1997, convicting him of murder in the [627]*627second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second 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 letters allegedly written by the defendant to Kim Henderson, an accomplice, were properly admitted into evidence. Circumstantial evidence may satisfy the requirement that a writing be authenticated before it may be introduced (see, People v Dunbar Contr. Co., 215 NY 416). At trial it was established that, in the letters, the defendant requested that Henderson plead the Fifth Amendment to prevent the District Attorney from obtaining a conviction against the defendant in the instant case. The letters also contained the defendant’s nickname, “DD”, and referred to another accomplice, Phil Johnson, by his nicknames “Cuzo” and “Ilflay”. The letters were sent in response to letters Henderson had mailed to the defendant. The foregoing constituted ample evidence to authenticate the letters (see, People v Murray, 122 AD2d 81).

The defendant’s contentions regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence are largely unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Backus, 175 AD2d 248). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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, resolutions of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). 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). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied the the verdict of guilt 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. Joy, J. P., Gold-stein, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 626, 709 N.Y.S.2d 101, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jean-louis-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack