From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Carver

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 12, 2004
3 A.D.3d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2002-10250.

Decided January 12, 2004.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered October 31, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Caroline R. Donhauser of counsel; Sara Katz on the brief), for respondent.

Before: HOWARD MILLER and SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence adduced at the trial was legally insufficient to establish that he possessed crack cocaine is unpreserved for appellate review, because he did not specify that ground in his motion to dismiss at the trial ( 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 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. To the extent that the defendant's argument relies on alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the police detectives, we note that the minor discrepancies do not render the challenged testimony incredible as a matter of law ( see People v. Harris, 262 A.D.2d 657). 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 trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses ( see People v. Giamari, 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 verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15).

SMITH, J.P., LUCIANO, H. MILLER and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Carver

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 12, 2004
3 A.D.3d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Carver

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. LOVELL CARVER, appellant

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

Date published: Jan 12, 2004

Citations

3 A.D.3d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
769 N.Y.S.2d 755

Citing Cases

State v. Middleton

Additionally, the defendant had $20 of prerecorded money on his person when he was arrested with his…

State v. Jordan

05; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, the defendant's contention is…