From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rivera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 28, 2003
307 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2001-03095

Argued June 17, 2003.

July 28, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered February 8, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Alexis A. Ascher of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Diana Villanueva of counsel), for respondent.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., SANDRA L. TOWNES, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not specify this ground in his motion to dismiss at trial ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, 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). 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15).

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the jury charge regarding interested witnesses was unbalanced (see CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, supra). In any event, the charge adequately conveyed to the jury the appropriate standards for evaluating witness testimony ( see People v. Inniss, 83 N.Y.2d 653; People v. Johnson, 284 A.D.2d 344).

PRUDENTI, P.J., TOWNES, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rivera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 28, 2003
307 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Rivera

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. JULIO RIVERA, appellant

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

Date published: Jul 28, 2003

Citations

307 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
762 N.Y.S.2d 828

Citing Cases

People v. Wiggins

The defendant correctly concedes that his challenge to the trial court's jury charge is unpreserved for…

People v. Rivera

May 15, 2007. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…