People v. Watson
This text of 111 A.D.2d 419 (People v. Watson) 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
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dubin, J.), rendered June 30, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant contends that the evidence of guilt is insufficient, particularly because the complainant’s identification was based upon a brief observation of defendant at about 6:30 a.m., in dusk-like light. He also claims that he was denied a fair trial on several grounds.
In reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the People, as we are obligated to do, and bearing in mind that credibility is a factor to be determined by the jury, we find that “the record contains evidence sufficient in quantity and quality to support the verdict” (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 757).
Moreover, we find no merit to defendant’s contention that the pretrial identification procedures were impermissively suggestive (see, e.g., People v Rodriguez, 64 NY2d 738).
We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and also find no merit to them.
Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
111 A.D.2d 419, 489 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-watson-nyappdiv-1985.