People v. St. John

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. St. John

239 A.D.2d 365, 657 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4560

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

DecidedMay 5, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 365 (People v. St. John) 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. St. John, 239 A.D.2d 365, 657 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.), rendered April 20, 1995, convicting him of assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon 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.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The trial court’s identification charge was adequate. The court properly instructed the jury on weighing the witnesses’ credibility, and stated that identification must be proven be[366]*366yond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 279; People v Smith, 203 AD2d 396). In addition, the trial court marshaled the evidence in a fair and even-handed manner and adequately alerted the jury to the defendant’s theories (see, People v Saunders, 64 NY2d 665; People v Rosero, 213 AD2d 500; People v McManus, 208 AD2d 866).

To the limited extent that the defendant’s remaining contentions are preserved for appellate review, they are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto, and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.), rendered April 20, 1995, convicting him of assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon 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.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The trial court’s identification charge was adequate. The court properly instructed the jury on weighing the witnesses’ credibility, and stated that identification must be proven be[366]*366yond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 279; People v Smith, 203 AD2d 396). In addition, the trial court marshaled the evidence in a fair and even-handed manner and adequately alerted the jury to the defendant’s theories (see, People v Saunders, 64 NY2d 665; People v Rosero, 213 AD2d 500; People v McManus, 208 AD2d 866).

To the limited extent that the defendant’s remaining contentions are preserved for appellate review, they are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto, and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 365, 657 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-st-john-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack