People v. Riolo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Riolo

292 A.D.2d 548, 739 N.Y.S.2d 278, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2960

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 548 (People v. Riolo) 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. Riolo, 292 A.D.2d 548, 739 N.Y.S.2d 278, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Klein, J.), rendered September 11, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court correctly determined that the decedent’s statement made before his death qualified as both a dying declaration (see, People v Nieves, 67 NY2d 125) and an excited utterance (see, People v Cotto, 92 NY2d 68, 79).

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of murder in the second degree 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 People (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 [549]*549review power, we are satisfied, that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Feuerstein, Luciano and Schmidt, 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, Suffolk County (Klein, J.), rendered September 11, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court correctly determined that the decedent’s statement made before his death qualified as both a dying declaration (see, People v Nieves, 67 NY2d 125) and an excited utterance (see, People v Cotto, 92 NY2d 68, 79).

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of murder in the second degree 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 People (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 [549]*549review power, we are satisfied, that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Feuerstein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 548, 739 N.Y.S.2d 278, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-riolo-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack