People v. Jimenez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jimenez

147 A.D.2d 905, 537 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1158

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 147 A.D.2d 905 (People v. Jimenez) 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. Jimenez, 147 A.D.2d 905, 537 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the court’s charge on reasonable doubt deprived him of a fair trial. From a review of the whole charge, we conclude that the court’s charge on reasonable doubt was sufficient because the jury would gather from it the correct rule to apply in arriving at its verdict (People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830, 832). However, we reiterate our strong disapproval of use of the phrases "reasonable degree of certainty” and "good, sound, substantial reasons” when describing proof beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Price, 144 AD2d 1013; People v Hewlett, 133 AD2d 417; People v Mitchell, 124 AD2d 977).

Defendant also contends that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. In this regard, it is asserted that the jury erred in crediting the victim’s testimony, rather than defendant’s. The credibility of the witnesses was a matter for determination by the trier of fact and we see no basis to substitute our judgment for that of the jury (People v Peoples, 130 AD2d 954, lv denied 70 NY2d 715).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — assault, first degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lawton JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the court’s charge on reasonable doubt deprived him of a fair trial. From a review of the whole charge, we conclude that the court’s charge on reasonable doubt was sufficient because the jury would gather from it the correct rule to apply in arriving at its verdict (People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830, 832). However, we reiterate our strong disapproval of use of the phrases "reasonable degree of certainty” and "good, sound, substantial reasons” when describing proof beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Price, 144 AD2d 1013; People v Hewlett, 133 AD2d 417; People v Mitchell, 124 AD2d 977).

Defendant also contends that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. In this regard, it is asserted that the jury erred in crediting the victim’s testimony, rather than defendant’s. The credibility of the witnesses was a matter for determination by the trier of fact and we see no basis to substitute our judgment for that of the jury (People v Peoples, 130 AD2d 954, lv denied 70 NY2d 715).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — assault, first degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lawton JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 905, 537 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jimenez-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack