From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Delgado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 30, 1991
178 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

December 30, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, 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 that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. The complainant testified that the defendant and another man approached him on the street, aimed a handgun at his head, and directed him to give them all of his money, which amounted to $130. The complainant further testified that he was able to observe the defendant at close range for one to two minutes, and that although the robbery occurred in the early morning hours prior to daylight, his observation was aided by the presence of two nearby lights. Any minor testimonial inconsistencies do not render the testimony of the prosecution witness incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Haynes, 175 A.D.2d 929; People v Colon, 161 A.D.2d 782).

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (CPL 470.15), we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The jury could reasonably and rationally conclude from the evidence adduced at trial that the defendant, displaying a handgun and assisted by another perpetrator, robbed the complainant. Resolution 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).

With regard to the defendant's contention that the prosecution's late disclosure of a handwritten complaint report denied him a fair trial, we note that this issue is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (CPL 470.15 [a]).

The sentence imposed by the court was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 84). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Harwood and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Delgado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 30, 1991
178 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Delgado

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSE DELGADO, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 30, 1991

Citations

178 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
577 N.Y.S.2d 887