People v. Toro

272 A.D.2d 351, 707 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4881
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 1, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 351 (People v. Toro) 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. Toro, 272 A.D.2d 351, 707 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered July 7, 1997, convicting him of murder in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that 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. A witness’s previous criminal convictions, admitted drug addiction, and/or alcoholism does not render the witness inherently incredible (see, People v Santiago, 228 AD2d 706; People v Butler, 221 AD2d 458; People v Beard, 197 AD2d 582; People v Walcott, 171 AD2d 767). The existence of minor inconsistencies in the witness’s testimony regarding tangential matters does not render the witness’s testimony incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Butler, supra; People v Walker, 215 AD2d 607). Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Santiago, supra; People v Mathews, 173 AD2d 565). The defendant fully explored before the jury the alleged infirmities in the People’s case. 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 (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Esguerra
2019 NY Slip Op 8690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. DeRosario
74 A.D.3d 1356 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Pitts
47 A.D.3d 845 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Torres
47 A.D.3d 851 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Tankleff
49 A.D.3d 160 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Adams
302 A.D.2d 601 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
People v. Smith
302 A.D.2d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
People v. McNeal
300 A.D.2d 322 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Louis
294 A.D.2d 377 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Ward
291 A.D.2d 906 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
272 A.D.2d 351, 707 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-toro-nyappdiv-2000.