People v. Munn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Munn

184 A.D.2d 1061, 584 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8315

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

DecidedJune 5, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 1061 (People v. Munn) 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. Munn, 184 A.D.2d 1061, 584 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]). On appeal, he argues that the 18-day delay between the close of proof and the rendering of a verdict denied him his right to a prompt verdict (see, CPL 320.20 [3] [d]; 350.10 [3] [d]; People v South, 41 NY2d 451). Inasmuch as defendant failed to object to the delay, that issue has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Waldron, 162 AD2d 485, 486; People v Wimes, 151 AD2d 1035, lv denied 74 NY2d 822; People v Woodley, 141 AD2d 587, 588; People v Andrews, 102 AD2d 894; cf., People v Hryn, 144 AD2d 961). In any event, under the circumstances of this case, the delay was not unreasonable as a matter of law (see, People v South, supra).

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 US 932), we conclude that the testimony of the defense witnesses presented a question of credibility for the court to resolve, and its resolution of that issue is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Drury, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]). On appeal, he argues that the 18-day delay between the close of proof and the rendering of a verdict denied him his right to a prompt verdict (see, CPL 320.20 [3] [d]; 350.10 [3] [d]; People v South, 41 NY2d 451). Inasmuch as defendant failed to object to the delay, that issue has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Waldron, 162 AD2d 485, 486; People v Wimes, 151 AD2d 1035, lv denied 74 NY2d 822; People v Woodley, 141 AD2d 587, 588; People v Andrews, 102 AD2d 894; cf., People v Hryn, 144 AD2d 961). In any event, under the circumstances of this case, the delay was not unreasonable as a matter of law (see, People v South, supra).

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 US 932), we conclude that the testimony of the defense witnesses presented a question of credibility for the court to resolve, and its resolution of that issue is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Drury, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 1061, 584 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-munn-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack