People v. Liddell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Liddell

224 A.D.2d 638, 639 N.Y.S.2d 704, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1351

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 638 (People v. Liddell) 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. Liddell, 224 A.D.2d 638, 639 N.Y.S.2d 704, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.), rendered February 9, 1994, convicting him of [639]*639murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he committed murder in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find it is 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 is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 84). O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Krausman, 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, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.), rendered February 9, 1994, convicting him of [639]*639murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he committed murder in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find it is 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 is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 84). O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 638, 639 N.Y.S.2d 704, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-liddell-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack