People v. Thornhill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Thornhill

105 A.D.3d 978, 962 N.Y.S.2d 910

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

DecidedApril 17, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.3d 978 (People v. Thornhill) 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. Thornhill, 105 A.D.3d 978, 962 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Warhit, J.), rendered May 24, 2011, convicting him of resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his conviction of resisting arrest is not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review, as defense counsel did not specifically address the resisting arrest count when he moved for a trial order of dismissal (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492-493 [2008]; People v Parris, 70 AD3d 725, 727 [2010]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt of resisting arrest.

Furthermore, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on the count of resisting arrest was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Warhit, J.), rendered May 24, 2011, convicting him of resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his conviction of resisting arrest is not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review, as defense counsel did not specifically address the resisting arrest count when he moved for a trial order of dismissal (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492-493 [2008]; People v Parris, 70 AD3d 725, 727 [2010]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt of resisting arrest.

Furthermore, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on the count of resisting arrest was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 978, 962 N.Y.S.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-thornhill-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack