People v. Jennings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jennings

120 A.D.2d 546, 501 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56623

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

DecidedMay 5, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 120 A.D.2d 546 (People v. Jennings) 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. Jennings, 120 A.D.2d 546, 501 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56623 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered June 17, 1981, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The evidence presented at the trial established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The responsibility for resolving any questions relating to identification and the credibility of witnesses lies with the trier of fact (see, People v Herriot, 110 AD2d 851). The evidence presented to the jury met the standard of proof for circumstantial evidence that it " 'exclude to a moral certainty every other reasonable hypothesis’ ” but the defendant’s guilt (People v Way, 59 NY2d 361, 365, quoting from People v Bearden, 290 NY 478, 480). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff and Rubin, 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 (Kreindler, J.), rendered June 17, 1981, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The evidence presented at the trial established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The responsibility for resolving any questions relating to identification and the credibility of witnesses lies with the trier of fact (see, People v Herriot, 110 AD2d 851). The evidence presented to the jury met the standard of proof for circumstantial evidence that it " 'exclude to a moral certainty every other reasonable hypothesis’ ” but the defendant’s guilt (People v Way, 59 NY2d 361, 365, quoting from People v Bearden, 290 NY 478, 480). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 546, 501 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jennings-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack