People v. Molina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Molina

297 A.D.2d 601, 747 N.Y.2d 368, 747 N.Y.S.2d 368, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8820

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 601 (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, 297 A.D.2d 601, 747 N.Y.2d 368, 747 N.Y.S.2d 368, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility, including minor inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by jury and there is no basis upon which to disturb its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94).

The court properly employed a screening procedure to control access to the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer. The testimony at the Hinton hearing was sufficiently particularized and established a substantial probability that the officer’s safety and effectiveness would be prejudiced by his testimony in an unrestricted courtroom (see People v Jones, 96 NY2d 213). Defendant’s claim that the court failed to set forth adequate findings of fact to support its ruling is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court’s ruling implicitly adopted the People’s particularized showing (see People v Walker, 265 AD2d 192, Iv denied 94 NY2d 831). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Sullivan and Lerner, 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. Issues of credibility, including minor inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by jury and there is no basis upon which to disturb its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94).

The court properly employed a screening procedure to control access to the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer. The testimony at the Hinton hearing was sufficiently particularized and established a substantial probability that the officer’s safety and effectiveness would be prejudiced by his testimony in an unrestricted courtroom (see People v Jones, 96 NY2d 213). Defendant’s claim that the court failed to set forth adequate findings of fact to support its ruling is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court’s ruling implicitly adopted the People’s particularized showing (see People v Walker, 265 AD2d 192, Iv denied 94 NY2d 831). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 601, 747 N.Y.2d 368, 747 N.Y.S.2d 368, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-molina-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack