From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mayorga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 26, 2000
273 A.D.2d 480 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued May 15, 2000.

July 26, 2000.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.), rendered April 6, 1998, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Paul Skip Laisure of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicole Beder, and Jennifer Etkin of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, 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 the defendant's guilt of the crime in the assault in the second degree based on an accomplice theory beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Allah, 71 N.Y.2d 830). Moreover, 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. 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). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the evidence was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

The defendant's challenge to the court's charge regarding his liability as an accessory is also unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Paulino, 244 A.D.2d 511). In any event, the court's instruction regarding the defendant's liability as an accessory adequately conveyed the proper standards (see, Penal Law § 20.00; People v. Kaplan, 76 N.Y.2d 140; People v. Latchman, 251 A.D.2d 683; People v. Paulino, supra).


Summaries of

People v. Mayorga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 26, 2000
273 A.D.2d 480 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Mayorga

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. PABLO MAYORGA, APPELLANT. (Ind. No…

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

Date published: Jul 26, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 480 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
711 N.Y.S.2d 739

Citing Cases

People v. Mayorga

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a…

People v. Lazaro

In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60…