People v. Serna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Serna

69 A.D.3d 886, 892 N.Y.2d 770

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 886 (People v. Serna) 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. Serna, 69 A.D.3d 886, 892 N.Y.2d 770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). According such deference here, we find that the descrepancies and inconsistencies in the police officers’ testimony were not of such magnitude as to render their testimony incredible. Thus, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). According such deference here, we find that the descrepancies and inconsistencies in the police officers’ testimony were not of such magnitude as to render their testimony incredible. Thus, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 886, 892 N.Y.2d 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-serna-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack