People v. Molina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Molina

200 A.D.2d 772, 608 N.Y.S.2d 861

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 772 (People v. Molina) 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. Molina, 200 A.D.2d 772, 608 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), rendered June 1, 1989, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (6 counts), sodomy in the third degree (2 counts), rape in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child (4 counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual [773]*773review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Miller, 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 (Golia, J.), rendered June 1, 1989, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (6 counts), sodomy in the third degree (2 counts), rape in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child (4 counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual [773]*773review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 772, 608 N.Y.S.2d 861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-molina-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack