From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 15, 2002
298 A.D.2d 465 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-00669

Argued September 17, 2002.

October 15, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), rendered January 11, 2001, convicting him of resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Kent V. Moston, Hempstead, N.Y. (Jeremy L. Goldberg and Christopher M. Cevasco of counsel), for appellant.

Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Peter A. Weinstein and Edward Miller of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

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. Moreover, 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 trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94; People v. Blake, 219 A.D.2d 730). 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; People v. Clay, 282 A.D.2d 755). 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).

In addition, absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right, proof of juror misconduct does not entitle the defendant to a new trial (see People v. Turner, 210 A.D.2d 445). Further, the trial court properly denied the defendant's request to discharge the offending juror. The juror's responses to the court's diligent inquiry did not demonstrate that he was grossly unqualified or had committed misconduct of a substantial nature (see People v. Young, 218 A.D.2d 767; cf. People v. Pineda, 269 A.D.2d 610).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review.

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., McGINITY, LUCIANO and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 15, 2002
298 A.D.2d 465 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Harris

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. TRACY HARRIS, appellant

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

Date published: Oct 15, 2002

Citations

298 A.D.2d 465 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
748 N.Y.S.2d 274