People v. Knight

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Knight

261 A.D.2d 487, 687 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789

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

DecidedMay 10, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 487 (People v. Knight) 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. Knight, 261 A.D.2d 487, 687 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), rendered October 18, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Evidence regarding the participation of the defendant and the People’s witnesses in an operation to sell crack-cocaine was properly admitted to complete the narrative of the witnesses, and to aid the jury in its comprehension of the crimes (see, People v Till, 87 NY2d 835; People v Boyd, 230 AD2d 805; People v Hardwick, 140 AD2d 624).

Although the court expanded slightly upon the jury charge contained in the Criminal Jury Instructions (see, 1 CJI [NY] 7.06), the entire charge, viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed to the jury the correct rule to apply in arriving at its verdict (see, People v Coleman, 70 NY2d 817; People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830; People v Dory, 59 NY2d 121; People v Owens, 202 AD2d 341; People v Calderon, 182 AD2d 770).

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Robinson, 251 AD2d 354; People v Tallarine, 223 AD2d 738). 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, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including the issue raised in his supplemental, pro se brief, are either unpreserved [488]*488for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, 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 County Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), rendered October 18, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Evidence regarding the participation of the defendant and the People’s witnesses in an operation to sell crack-cocaine was properly admitted to complete the narrative of the witnesses, and to aid the jury in its comprehension of the crimes (see, People v Till, 87 NY2d 835; People v Boyd, 230 AD2d 805; People v Hardwick, 140 AD2d 624).

Although the court expanded slightly upon the jury charge contained in the Criminal Jury Instructions (see, 1 CJI [NY] 7.06), the entire charge, viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed to the jury the correct rule to apply in arriving at its verdict (see, People v Coleman, 70 NY2d 817; People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830; People v Dory, 59 NY2d 121; People v Owens, 202 AD2d 341; People v Calderon, 182 AD2d 770).

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Robinson, 251 AD2d 354; People v Tallarine, 223 AD2d 738). 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, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including the issue raised in his supplemental, pro se brief, are either unpreserved [488]*488for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 487, 687 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-knight-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack