From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ragin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 20, 1996
224 A.D.2d 642 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 20, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's statements to the police were properly admitted into evidence since they were voluntarily made ( see, People v Green, 161 A.D.2d 359; People v. Clayborn, 90 A.D.2d 597). Although the defendant was hospitalized when he made the statements, there is no evidence in the record that he was unable to comprehend their meaning ( see, People v. Butler, 175 A.D.2d 252; People v Pearson, 106 A.D.2d 588). In addition, contrary to the defendant's contention, the statements were admissible as an admission, which is an exception to the hearsay rule ( see, Prince, Richardson Evidence § 8-251, at 552 [Farrell 11th ed]).

The defendant's contention that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In addition, the defendant contends that the People's main witness, because of her criminal history and involvement with illegal drugs, should not have been believed by the jury. However, resolution of issues of credibility and 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, 94). 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). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ragin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 20, 1996
224 A.D.2d 642 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Ragin

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THELONIOUS RAGIN…

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

Date published: Feb 20, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 642 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
638 N.Y.S.2d 693

Citing Cases

People v. Ward

We reject that contention. “In a criminal prosecution, any act or declaration of the accused inconsistent…

People v. Timmons

Accordingly, the subsequent action by the police in forcibly opening the door of the apartment did not…