People v. Rivera

17 Citing cases

  1. People v. Cotto

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 5247 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    "In contrast, when undertaking a weight of the evidence review, this Court must first determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, a different finding would not have been unreasonable and then weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" (People v Harris, 206 A.D.3d 1063, 1064 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). In performing our review, "we do not distinguish between direct or circumstantial evidence" (People v Rivera, 212 A.D.3d 942, 944 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1113 [2023]).

  2. People v. Johnson

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 1212 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    counsel was ineffective (see People v Rivera, 212 A.D.3d 942, 949 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1113 [2023]; People v White-Span, 182 A.D.3d 909 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1071 [2020]). As to the absence of any request by counsel to redact those portions of defendant's recorded confession referencing an individual

  3. People v. Moore

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 337 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    When conducting this review, [this Court] consider[s] the evidence in a neutral light and defer[s] to the jury's credibility assessments" (People v Terry, 196 A.D.3d 840, 841 [3d Dept 2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1030 [2021]). "Notably, we do not distinguish between direct or circumstantial evidence in conducting a legal sufficiency and/or weight of the evidence review" (People v Truitt, 213 A.D.3d 1145, 1147 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1144 [2023]; see People v Rivera, 212 A.D.3d 942, 944 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1113 [2023]).

  4. People v. Lall

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 338 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    The cell phone records, surveillance cameras and license plate readers map the codefendants' round trip from Delaware to Schenectady and back and show the codefendants stopping at defendant's house then driving to the victim's neighborhood. "When a person is intentionally killed pursuant to a contract [Penal Law § 125.27 (1) (a) (vi)], both parties to the contract, regardless of which one directly causes the death, will be liable under this provision" (William C. Donnino, Prac Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 125.27 at 350 [2020 ed]). A jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant and the codefendants jointly planned, prepared for and committed the murder of the victim for pecuniary gain (see People v Rivera, 212 A.D.3d 942, 947 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1113 [2023]; People v Glanda, 5 A.D.3d 945, 949 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 3 N.Y.3d 640 [2004], cert denied 543 U.S. 1093 [2005]). Moreover, the intent to kill can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and defendant's and the codefendants' actions (see People v Taylor, 196 A.D.3d 851, 852 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1030 [2021]); People v White-Span, 182 A.D.3d 909, 910 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1071 [2020]).

  5. People v. Bridges

    220 A.D.3d 1107 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    Defendant first contends that the evidence adduced at trial is not legally sufficient to support the charge of manslaughter in the first degree and that the verdict on that charge is against the weight of the evidence. "When assessing the legal sufficiency of a jury verdict, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the People and examine whether there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt" ( People v. Rivera, 212 A.D.3d 942, 944, 181 N.Y.S.3d 387 [3d Dept. 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1113, 186 N.Y.S.3d 841, 208 N.E.3d 70 [2023] ). At the same time, when "conducting a weight of the evidence review, we must view the evidence in a neutral light and determine first whether a different verdict would have been unreasonable and, if not, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" ( People v. Franklin, 216 A.D.3d 1304, 1306, 190 N.Y.S.3d 471 [3d Dept. 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 934, 194 N.Y.S.3d 750, 215 N.E.3d 1191 [2023] ; seePeople v. Watts, 215 A.D.3d 1170, 1171, 187 N.Y.S.3d 848 [3d Dept. 2023] ).

  6. People v. Leppanen

    218 A.D.3d 995 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 5 times

    However, because defendant also argues that his convictions are not supported by the weight of the evidence, we nevertheless must determine whether the People proved each element of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Shabazz, 211 A.D.3d 1093, 1094 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1113 [2023]). In doing so, a weight of the evidence analysis requires us to "first determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, a different finding would not have been unreasonable and then, if not, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" (People v Rivera, 212 A.D.3d 942, 944 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1113 [2023]). Further, "we view the evidence in a neutral light and defer to

  7. People v. Truitt

    213 A.D.3d 1145 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 16 times

    In doing so, we "view [the] evidence in a neutral light while giving deference to the credibility determinations made by the trier of fact" ( People v. Lekovic, 200 A.D.3d 1501, 1502, 161 N.Y.S.3d 412 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1008, 168 N.Y.S.3d 360, 188 N.E.3d 552 [2022] ). Notably, "we do not distinguish between direct or circumstantial evidence in conducting a legal sufficiency and/or weight of the evidence review" ( People v. Terry, 196 A.D.3d 840, 841, 149 N.Y.S.3d 705 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1030, 153 N.Y.S.3d 432, 175 N.E.3d 457 [2021] ; accordPeople v. Rivera, 212 A.D.3d 942, ––––, 181 N.Y.S.3d 387, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 00129, *2 [3d Dept. 2023] ).

  8. People v. Grady

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 6628 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    wing officers asking questions, providing various narratives of the events from that evening, showing defendant images or video footage or encouraging him to tell the truth. More significantly, the record establishes that the People did not emphasize defendant's silence during their case-in-chief, and the People's brief reference in summation to defendant's demeanor during the interview does not indicate that the People were attempting to highlight or infer that defendant had refused to answer any questions from the detectives (compare People v Williams, 25 N.Y.3d at 192; People v Conyers, 52 N.Y.2d 454, 458 [1981]; People v Chapman, 182 A.D.3d at 866). Accordingly, through that lens, we do not find that counsel's failure to object to the introduction of any portion of defendant's recorded interview on the grounds of selective silence rendered his representation ineffective (see People v Johnson, 225 A.D.3d 927, 935-936 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 927 [2024]; People v Rivera, 212 A.D.3d 942, 949 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1113 [2023]; see also People v Jenkins, 198 A.D.3d 488, 489 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1146 [2021]). Although the People represent that only one segment of the interview identified by defendant was shown to the jury, that is not entirely clear from the record.

  9. People v. Graham

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 6627 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    In conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, "we view the facts in the light most favorable to the People and examine whether there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v Santiago, 206 A.D.3d 1466, 1467 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Conversely, "when undertaking a weight of the evidence review, this Court must first determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, a different finding would not have been unreasonable and then, if not, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" (People v Rivera, 212 A.D.3d 942, 944 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1113 [2023]). "Constructive possession is proven by demonstrating that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the location where contraband was found, and exclusive access is not required" (People v Kendricks, 226 A.D.3d 1150, 1151 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 1003 [2024]).

  10. People v. Lane

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 6252 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    986, 988 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 996 [2023]). To the extent that defendant asserts that counsel should have advocated against an enhanced sentence on the basis that his failure to appear at sentencing was not willful, such argument relies on communications between defendant and counsel that are outside the record and, as such, is more properly the subject of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see People v Rivera, 212 A.D.3d 942, 949 n 2 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1113 [2023]; People v Taylor, 194 A.D.3d 1264, 1266 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 975 [2021]). As the record otherwise fails to disclose that defendant was denied meaningful representation, we are satisfied that defendant received the effective assistance of counsel.