People v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Martinez

92 A.D.3d 592, 938 N.Y.2d 800

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.3d 592 (People v. Martinez) 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. Martinez, 92 A.D.3d 592, 938 N.Y.2d 800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning the credibility and reliability of witnesses, and its rejection of defendant’s third-party-culpability defense.

The court properly exercised its discretion in receiving rebuttal evidence concerning the type of baseball bat used during the incident by the person claimed by defendant to be the actual perpetrator (see e.g. People v Harrington, 262 AD2d 220 [1999], lv denied, 94 NY2d 823 [1999]). Under the circumstances, the nature of the instrument was material to the case.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning the credibility and reliability of witnesses, and its rejection of defendant’s third-party-culpability defense.

The court properly exercised its discretion in receiving rebuttal evidence concerning the type of baseball bat used during the incident by the person claimed by defendant to be the actual perpetrator (see e.g. People v Harrington, 262 AD2d 220 [1999], lv denied, 94 NY2d 823 [1999]). Under the circumstances, the nature of the instrument was material to the case.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 592, 938 N.Y.2d 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-martinez-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack