People v. Norfleet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Norfleet

92 A.D.3d 522, 938 N.Y.2d 431

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.3d 522 (People v. Norfleet) 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. Norfleet, 92 A.D.3d 522, 938 N.Y.2d 431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the physical injury element of one of her robbery convic[523]*523tions (see Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]). That claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations, including its assessment of the victim’s characterization of her injuries (see People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]).

The evidence established that defendant and her accomplices assaulted the victim for several minutes in order to take her jewelry. The victim testified that she sustained scrapes, scratches, and bruises, causing significant pain. In addition, the victim sought medical treatment and received prescription-strength pain medication. Accordingly, the jury’s verdict was amply supported by the evidence (see Penal Law § 10.00 [9]; People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]).

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Catterson, Richter and AbdusSalaam, JJ

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

Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the physical injury element of one of her robbery convic[523]*523tions (see Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]). That claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations, including its assessment of the victim’s characterization of her injuries (see People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]).

The evidence established that defendant and her accomplices assaulted the victim for several minutes in order to take her jewelry. The victim testified that she sustained scrapes, scratches, and bruises, causing significant pain. In addition, the victim sought medical treatment and received prescription-strength pain medication. Accordingly, the jury’s verdict was amply supported by the evidence (see Penal Law § 10.00 [9]; People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]).

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Catterson, Richter and AbdusSalaam, JJ

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 522, 938 N.Y.2d 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-norfleet-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack