From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Anglin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 1997
239 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 27, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Koch, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 (CPL 470.15). Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245), without merit, or harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).

Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Anglin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 1997
239 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Anglin

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DESMOND ANGLIN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 27, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 994

Citing Cases

Jones v. Stinson

On the same day that Jones was decided, the Appellate Division expressly stated in each of the following…

Jones v. Stinson

On the same day that Jones was decided, the Appellate Division expressly stated in each of the following…