From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Crawford

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 5, 2004
2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 50477 (N.Y. App. Term 2004)

Opinion

2003-435 QCR.

Decided March 5, 2004.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Criminal Court, Queens County (F. Camacho, J.), rendered February 15, 2003, convicting him of two counts of attempted sexual misconduct (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.20 [i]), sexual abuse in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.55) and harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26), and imposing sentence thereon.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ.


At the conclusion of the People's case, defendant moved for a trial order of dismissal on the ground that the People failed to establish a prima facie case. Thereafter, at the conclusion of the testimony, defendant again sought dismissal arguing that there was insufficient evidence to establish the crime of attempted assault in the third degree. Inasmuch as defendant was acquitted of the attempted assault charge and since the initial motion was based on the general allegation of failure to establish a prima facie case, without setting forth any specific deficiency in the evidence, defendant's contention as to the insufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20-21; People v. Santos, 86 NY2d 869; People v. Bynum, 70 NY2d 858). Moreover, even if said issue were properly before the court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilty was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15). In addition, it is our opinion that the messages left on the victim's answering machine were properly admitted into evidence as indicative of consciousness of guilt (see People v. Bennett, 79 NY2d 464, 470; People v. Cotto, 222 AD2d 345). Finally, in light of the underlying facts and the convictions involved herein, we find that the sentence imposed was neither unduly harsh nor excessive.


Summaries of

People v. Crawford

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 5, 2004
2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 50477 (N.Y. App. Term 2004)
Case details for

People v. Crawford

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ALPHONSO CRAWFORD…

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

Date published: Mar 5, 2004

Citations

2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 50477 (N.Y. App. Term 2004)