People v. Spells

66 A.D.3d 924, 886 N.Y.S.2d 625
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 20, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 66 A.D.3d 924 (People v. Spells) 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. Spells, 66 A.D.3d 924, 886 N.Y.S.2d 625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott, J.), rendered June 1, 2005, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the prosecution failed to disprove his justification defense by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Smiley, 303 AD2d 425 [2003]; People v Nery, 243 AD2d 585 [1997]; People v Reeder, 209 AD2d 551 [1994]). In any event, 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 disprove the defendant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 35.15; People v Dominguez, 226 AD2d 391 [1996]; People v Reeder, 209 AD2d 551 [1994]; People v Torres, 182 AD2d 788 [1992]).

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]). 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 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Santana
2017 NY Slip Op 494 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Stoney
72 A.D.3d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 A.D.3d 924, 886 N.Y.S.2d 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spells-nyappdiv-2009.