People v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Martin

108 A.D.2d 928, 485 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43264

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 108 A.D.2d 928 (People v. Martin) 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. Martin, 108 A.D.2d 928, 485 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Potoker, J.), rendered September 8,1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), 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.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the People by attacking the credibility of Harold McKnight, an eyewitness to the shooting for which defendant was ultimately convicted. It is axiomatic that issues of credibility are primarily for the jury, which has the “advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses” (People v Kidd, 76 AD2d 665, 666, lv dismissed 51 NY2d 882; People v Gruttola, 43 NY2d 116, 122; People v Rosenfeld, 93 AD2d 872). Mr. McKnight’s background was presented to the jury for their consideration. Moreover, the court properly charged the jury on the standards by which credibility may be assessed. The jury chose to credit this witness’ testimony (see, People v Bigelow, 106 AD2d 448; People v Siu Wah Tse, 91 AD2d 350, 352).

Mr. McKnight, with great specificity, described the events which had transpired on the day in question. Detailed portions of his testimony were corroborated by and were consistent with the testimony of another eyewitness, three detectives, a ballistics expert, and a medical examiner. Thus, the evidence was “sufficient in quantity and quality to support the [jury’s] verdict” (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 757). The conclusion that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes [929]*929with which he was charged is “consistent with and flow[s] naturally from the proven facts” (People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196, 202).

We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Potoker, J.), rendered September 8,1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), 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.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the People by attacking the credibility of Harold McKnight, an eyewitness to the shooting for which defendant was ultimately convicted. It is axiomatic that issues of credibility are primarily for the jury, which has the “advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses” (People v Kidd, 76 AD2d 665, 666, lv dismissed 51 NY2d 882; People v Gruttola, 43 NY2d 116, 122; People v Rosenfeld, 93 AD2d 872). Mr. McKnight’s background was presented to the jury for their consideration. Moreover, the court properly charged the jury on the standards by which credibility may be assessed. The jury chose to credit this witness’ testimony (see, People v Bigelow, 106 AD2d 448; People v Siu Wah Tse, 91 AD2d 350, 352).

Mr. McKnight, with great specificity, described the events which had transpired on the day in question. Detailed portions of his testimony were corroborated by and were consistent with the testimony of another eyewitness, three detectives, a ballistics expert, and a medical examiner. Thus, the evidence was “sufficient in quantity and quality to support the [jury’s] verdict” (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 757). The conclusion that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes [929]*929with which he was charged is “consistent with and flow[s] naturally from the proven facts” (People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196, 202).

We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.2d 928, 485 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-martin-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack