People v. Morse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Morse

294 A.D.2d 601, 742 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5556

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

DecidedMay 28, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 601 (People v. Morse) 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. Morse, 294 A.D.2d 601, 742 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered February 1, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[602]*602Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he committed the crime for which he was convicted is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, 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, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, 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, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered February 1, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[602]*602Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he committed the crime for which he was convicted is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, 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, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 601, 742 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-morse-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack