People v. Minter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Minter

106 A.D.3d 934, 964 N.Y.S.2d 660

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

DecidedMay 15, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.3d 934 (People v. Minter) 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. Minter, 106 A.D.3d 934, 964 N.Y.S.2d 660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Condon, J.), rendered July 12, 2011, convicting her of grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the admission of certain testimony from a detective deprived her of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, is without merit. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the detective did not give testimony that was the equivalent of an opinion asserting that the defendant was guilty of the crimes charged in the indictment (see People v Kozlowski, 11 [935]*935NY3d 223, 240 [2008]; cf. People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431, 439 [1979]). Moreover, the detective did not impermissibly testify regarding the defendant’s post-arrest silence (cf. People v Conyers, 52 NY2d 454 [1981]).

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Lott and Roman, 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 (Condon, J.), rendered July 12, 2011, convicting her of grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the admission of certain testimony from a detective deprived her of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, is without merit. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the detective did not give testimony that was the equivalent of an opinion asserting that the defendant was guilty of the crimes charged in the indictment (see People v Kozlowski, 11 [935]*935NY3d 223, 240 [2008]; cf. People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431, 439 [1979]). Moreover, the detective did not impermissibly testify regarding the defendant’s post-arrest silence (cf. People v Conyers, 52 NY2d 454 [1981]).

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 934, 964 N.Y.S.2d 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-minter-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack