People v. Singleton

135 A.D.2d 847, 523 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52787
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Singleton. Read the opinion of the Court — 121 A.D.2d 752

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.), rendered October 19, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[848]*848Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s allegation that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt is without merit. The defendant’s conviction was largely the result of the eyewitness testimony of the two complainants. After viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620). Accordingly, the evidence was legally sufficient.

The question of identification by an eyewitness is a matter of credibility for the jury (People v Gruttola, 43 NY2d 116) and its determination is to be accorded great weight on appeal. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Singleton, 135 A.D.2d 847, 523 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

135 A.D.2d 847 (People v. Singleton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Gruttola
371 N.E.2d 506 (New York Court of Appeals, 1977)
People v. Contes
454 N.E.2d 932 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)