People v. Saunders

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Saunders

159 A.D.2d 449, 554 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3062

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 159 A.D.2d 449 (People v. Saunders) 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. Saunders, 159 A.D.2d 449, 554 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3062 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered June 13, 1986, after a jury trial, convicting defendant of arson in the second degree (Penal Law § 150.15), for which he was sentenced to 5 to 15 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we conclude that any rational trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence excluded to a moral certainty any inference inconsistent with guilt (People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196, 202). Defendant’s challenge to the credibility of witnesses was for the jury to resolve (People v Montanez, 41 NY2d 53, 57).

The hearing court did not err to the extent that it denied defendant’s motion to suppress defendant’s inculpatory statements, and we defer to its findings of credibility People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). Defendant’s physical condition did not detract from the voluntariness of defendant’s statement (see, People v Eastman, 114 AD2d 509; People v Pearson, 106 AD2d 588, 589). We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered June 13, 1986, after a jury trial, convicting defendant of arson in the second degree (Penal Law § 150.15), for which he was sentenced to 5 to 15 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we conclude that any rational trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence excluded to a moral certainty any inference inconsistent with guilt (People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196, 202). Defendant’s challenge to the credibility of witnesses was for the jury to resolve (People v Montanez, 41 NY2d 53, 57).

The hearing court did not err to the extent that it denied defendant’s motion to suppress defendant’s inculpatory statements, and we defer to its findings of credibility People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). Defendant’s physical condition did not detract from the voluntariness of defendant’s statement (see, People v Eastman, 114 AD2d 509; People v Pearson, 106 AD2d 588, 589). We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 449, 554 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-saunders-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack