People v. Leggard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Leggard

298 A.D.2d 406, 751 N.Y.S.2d 383, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9408

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 406 (People v. Leggard) 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. Leggard, 298 A.D.2d 406, 751 N.Y.S.2d 383, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered December 11, 2000, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his claim that the evidence was legally insufficient because the People failed to prove that he was aware that shaking his infant could result in her death (see CPL 470.05 [2]). 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 (see People v Tang, 277 AD2d 474; People v Haynes, 272 AD2d 413; People v Kendall, 254 AD2d 809; People v Goodridge, 251 AD2d 85). 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]). O’Brien, J.P., Krausman, Townes and Cozier, 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 (Buchter, J.), rendered December 11, 2000, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his claim that the evidence was legally insufficient because the People failed to prove that he was aware that shaking his infant could result in her death (see CPL 470.05 [2]). 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 (see People v Tang, 277 AD2d 474; People v Haynes, 272 AD2d 413; People v Kendall, 254 AD2d 809; People v Goodridge, 251 AD2d 85). 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]). O’Brien, J.P., Krausman, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 406, 751 N.Y.S.2d 383, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-leggard-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack