People v. Wiley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wiley

167 A.D.2d 885, 563 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14445

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 885 (People v. Wiley) 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. Wiley, 167 A.D.2d 885, 563 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14445 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the People the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence, we conclude that defendant’s guilt was proven to a moral certainty and that the circumstantial proof was legally sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for murder in the second degree (see, People v Betancourt, 68 NY2d 707, 709-710; People v Marin, 65 NY2d 741, 742). The sentence imposed upon defendant was lawful and, in our view, was not harsh or excessive.

Defendant’s trial counsel failed to object to the witness’s in-court identification of defendant or to the court’s refusal to have the prosecutor’s opening statement reread to the jury. These remaining contentions were not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our discretionary power of review (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.— murder, second degree.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the People the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence, we conclude that defendant’s guilt was proven to a moral certainty and that the circumstantial proof was legally sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for murder in the second degree (see, People v Betancourt, 68 NY2d 707, 709-710; People v Marin, 65 NY2d 741, 742). The sentence imposed upon defendant was lawful and, in our view, was not harsh or excessive.

Defendant’s trial counsel failed to object to the witness’s in-court identification of defendant or to the court’s refusal to have the prosecutor’s opening statement reread to the jury. These remaining contentions were not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our discretionary power of review (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.— murder, second degree.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 885, 563 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wiley-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack