People v. Simpson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Simpson

284 A.D.2d 238, 728 N.Y.S.2d 135, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6561

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 21, 2001·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered November 30, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first and second degrees, and kidnapping in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, 25 years to life, I2V2 to 25 years, 5 to 15 years and 8V3 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility were properly considered by the trier of facts and there is no basis upon which to disturb its determinations (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). The jury could have reasonably concluded that even if the eyewitness had delayed in revealing defendant’s identity to the police, his identification of defendant at trial was nevertheless reliable, and that the apparent discrepancies in the testimony of the People’s other witness were explainable by the witness’s confusion as to dates. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Andrias and Mar-low, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered November 30, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first and second degrees, and kidnapping in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, 25 years to life, I2V2 to 25 years, 5 to 15 years and 8V3 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility were properly considered by the trier of facts and there is no basis upon which to disturb its determinations (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). The jury could have reasonably concluded that even if the eyewitness had delayed in revealing defendant’s identity to the police, his identification of defendant at trial was nevertheless reliable, and that the apparent discrepancies in the testimony of the People’s other witness were explainable by the witness’s confusion as to dates. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Andrias and Mar-low, JJ.

People v. Simpson, 284 A.D.2d 238, 728 N.Y.S.2d 135, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

284 A.D.2d 238 (People v. Simpson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related