Opinion
November 24, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.).
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, is legally sufficient to support the verdict of guilty herein (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), and giving due deference to the jury's resolution of issues regarding credibility, the verdict was supported by the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). The existence of an inconsistency between the police officer's testimony before the Grand Jury and at trial does not compel the conclusion that the testimony was not credible (see, People v Simmons, 176 A.D.2d 189, 190, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 864), especially where the officer gave a credible explanation for the inconsistency, and only one version of defendant's role in the physical exchange of the drugs was given at trial.
Finally, in assessing the jury charge as a whole (see, People v Adams, 69 N.Y.2d 805), the court properly expressed to the jury that credibility was an issue, and that inconsistencies bear on credibility. The court is not "required to explain all the contentions of the parties or outline all the inconsistencies in the evidence" (People v Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665, 667). Because of the short length and uncomplicated nature of the trial, any additional instructions on inconsistent statements were not necessary (see, People v Adames, 168 A.D.2d 623, 624, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 957).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Ross and Asch, JJ.