People v. Mitchell

2 Citing cases

  1. In the Matter of Dan H

    26 A.D.3d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792; cf. People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and petit larceny ( see Penal Law §§ 20.00, 155.25, 165.45 [2]; Matter of Kadeem W., 5 NY3d 864; Matter of Nikson D., 15 AD3d 656; People v. Mitchell, 126 AD2d 754). 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.

  2. People v. Quaresimo

    286 A.D.2d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 1 times

    The verdict finding defendant guilty of forgery in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.10), criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 165.45) and petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) is not contrary to the weight of the evidence, and the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), is legally sufficient to support the conviction ( see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). The proof establishes that defendant acted as an accomplice ( see, Penal Law § 20.00) in the possession and use of a stolen credit card to purchase a television and VCR ( see, People v. Moye, 275 A.D.2d 887, 888, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 936; People v. Mathis, 147 A.D.2d 851, 854, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 1018; People v. Mitchell, 126 A.D.2d 754). Because the evidence of defendant's guilt as an accomplice was both direct and circumstantial, Supreme Court was not required to give a moral certainty charge ( see, People v. DeJesus, 256 A.D.2d 59, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 969; see also, People v. Goncalves, ___ A.D.2d ___ [decided May 2, 2001]). The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony.