People v. Samaroo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Samaroo

137 A.D.3d 1308, 27 N.Y.S.3d 391

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

DecidedMarch 30, 2016

Docket2013-10699

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 1308 (People v. Samaroo) 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. Samaroo, 137 A.D.3d 1308, 27 N.Y.S.3d 391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered November 14, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*1309 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 160.10 [1], [2] [a]; People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]; People v Walters, 69 AD3d 768, 768-769 [2010]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644 [2006]).

In addition, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s request for a missing witness charge, as there was no evidence that the uncalled witnesses would provide noncumulative testimony (see People v Edwards, 14 NY3d 733, 735 [2010]; People v Stewart, 96 AD3d 880, 881 [2012]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Barros, 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, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered November 14, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*1309 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 160.10 [1], [2] [a]; People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]; People v Walters, 69 AD3d 768, 768-769 [2010]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644 [2006]).

In addition, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s request for a missing witness charge, as there was no evidence that the uncalled witnesses would provide noncumulative testimony (see People v Edwards, 14 NY3d 733, 735 [2010]; People v Stewart, 96 AD3d 880, 881 [2012]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 1308, 27 N.Y.S.3d 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-samaroo-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack