People v. Stetson-Shanahan
This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 06064 (People v. Stetson-Shanahan) 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.
Opinion
| People v Stetson-Shanahan |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 06064 |
| Decided on December 4, 2024 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on December 4, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
PAUL WOOTEN
DEBORAH A. DOWLING
CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ.
2020-05714
(Ind. No. 1246/17)
v
Render Stetson-Shanahan, appellant.
Patricia Pazner (Hannah Kon and Covington & Burling LLP, New York, NY [Catherine M. Carulas and Gina N. Gonzales], of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Jonathan E. Maseng of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Richard L. Buchter, J.), rendered June 10, 2020, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]). In any event, 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 of manslaughter in the second degree 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, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). 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).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
BARROS, J.P., WOOTEN, DOWLING and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 NY Slip Op 06064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stetson-shanahan-nyappdiv-2024.