From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Burroughs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 23, 1987
127 A.D.2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Summary

finding that "[w]hile the testimony of eyewitnesses contained various inconsistencies, these discrepancies were before the triers of fact"

Summary of this case from Schouenborg v. Superintendent, Auburn Corr. Facility

Opinion

February 23, 1987

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Lamont, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that his motion for a severance, made on the eve of trial, was erroneously denied. The record reveals that the defendant and his codefendant entered a social club together, fired shotguns in unison at the complainant and were subsequently arrested together in another city. "Where proof against the defendants is supplied by the same evidence, only the most cogent reasons warrant a severance" (People v. Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75, 87, cert denied 416 U.S. 905). Since the evidence against the defendant and his codefendant in this case was virtually identical, we discern no error in the denial of the motion for separate trials (see, e.g., People v. Cruz, 66 N.Y.2d 61, cert granted ___ US ___, 106 S Ct 2888; Matter of Michael J., 117 A.D.2d 602). Likewise, the court's Sandoval ruling was the product of a careful balancing of the probative value of the defendant's prior convictions on the issue of credibility against their prejudicial effect (see, People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236) and did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282).

Similarly unavailing is the defendant's contention that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While the testimony of the eyewitnesses contained various inconsistencies, these discrepancies were before the triers of fact, and we find no basis for disturbing the jury's evaluation of the witnesses' credibility (see, e.g., People v. Irby, 115 A.D.2d 661; People v. Rosenfeld, 93 A.D.2d 872). Viewing the entire record in the light most favorable to the People (see, e.g., People v. Loughlin, 66 N.Y.2d 633), we conclude that there was sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence from which the jury could find the defendant guilty of attempted murder in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Burroughs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 23, 1987
127 A.D.2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

finding that "[w]hile the testimony of eyewitnesses contained various inconsistencies, these discrepancies were before the triers of fact"

Summary of this case from Schouenborg v. Superintendent, Auburn Corr. Facility
Case details for

People v. Burroughs

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LARRY BURROUGHS…

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

Date published: Feb 23, 1987

Citations

127 A.D.2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Schouenborg v. Superintendent, Auburn Corr. Facility

Other courts grappling with the sufficiency of identification evidence presented to the jury have come to…

People v. Watts

The fact that his codefendants were arrested at a different time and place than he was, and that only they…