People v. Lane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lane

139 A.D.2d 534, 526 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3766

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

DecidedApril 4, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.2d 534 (People v. Lane) 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. Lane, 139 A.D.2d 534, 526 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Balbach, J.), rendered November 6, 1986, convicting him of tampering with a witness in the third degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People, we find it legally sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of both counts of the crime charged (see, People v Lewis, 64 NY2d 1111). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Although it is not entirely clear from his brief, the defendant apparently suggests that he was prejudiced in that, immediately prior to taking the stand, the prosecution witness George Chamberlin discussed the case with the Assistant District Attorney in the presence of the complainant, thereby allegedly rendering Chamberlin’s testimony less than credible. Contrary to the defendant’s present contention — raised for the first time on appeal — the conduct of the Assistant District Attorney furnished no basis for reversal, but rather created an issue of credibility, which, we note, was fully presented for [535]*535the court’s consideration through the defense counsel’s cross-examination of the witness (see, People v Rosa, 125 AD2d 345, lv denied 69 NY2d 954). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin and Hooper, 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 (Balbach, J.), rendered November 6, 1986, convicting him of tampering with a witness in the third degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People, we find it legally sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of both counts of the crime charged (see, People v Lewis, 64 NY2d 1111). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Although it is not entirely clear from his brief, the defendant apparently suggests that he was prejudiced in that, immediately prior to taking the stand, the prosecution witness George Chamberlin discussed the case with the Assistant District Attorney in the presence of the complainant, thereby allegedly rendering Chamberlin’s testimony less than credible. Contrary to the defendant’s present contention — raised for the first time on appeal — the conduct of the Assistant District Attorney furnished no basis for reversal, but rather created an issue of credibility, which, we note, was fully presented for [535]*535the court’s consideration through the defense counsel’s cross-examination of the witness (see, People v Rosa, 125 AD2d 345, lv denied 69 NY2d 954). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 534, 526 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lane-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack