From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Colon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 29, 1990
161 A.D.2d 782 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 29, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berkowitz, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. The prosecution called the eyewitness, a car-service driver, who had gone to the house which was burglarized to pick up passengers. He testified that he observed the defendant for about four minutes in broad daylight as the defendant and two other men started carrying various items out of the house and loading them into the trunk of his cab. Any minor testimonial inconsistencies do not render the testimony of the prosecution witness incredible as a matter of law (see, People v. Punter, 149 A.D.2d 631).

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (CPL 470.15), we find the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The jury could reasonably and rationally conclude from the evidence adduced at trial (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490) that the defendant had knowingly entered complainant's home with intent to commit a larceny. Resolutions of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to 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, 86). As the verdict is clearly supported by the record, it should not be disturbed (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86).

The court's Sandoval ruling was proper since it permitted the prosecution to inquire as to the facts underlying a youthful offender adjudication for the purpose of impeaching the defendant's credibility, provided that no mention was made as to the ultimate disposition (see, People v. Kyser, 147 A.D.2d 590).

Contrary to the defendant's assertions, we do not find the sentence imposed to be unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 83).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find that it does not require reversal. Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Colon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 29, 1990
161 A.D.2d 782 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Colon

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CARLOS COLON, Appellant

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

Date published: May 29, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 782 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
556 N.Y.S.2d 125

Citing Cases

People v. Torres

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620),…

People v. Samwell

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not…