From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 16, 1997
240 A.D.2d 587 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

June 16, 1997

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support his conviction for attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer is not preserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 250). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).

The defendant also failed to preserve his contention that the forensic expert's testimony should not have been admitted because it was too uncertain ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Balls, supra, at 642). In any event, any error in allowing the testimony in question was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt ( see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).

Miller, J.P., Copertino, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 16, 1997
240 A.D.2d 587 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. NOEL BROWN, Also Known…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 1997

Citations

240 A.D.2d 587 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
659 N.Y.S.2d 989

Citing Cases

People v. Sam

Two of the officers returned fire, striking the defendant. The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency…

People v. Rottela

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see…