People v. Shapiro

37 Citing cases

  1. People v. Nealy

    32 A.D.3d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 33 times

    The defendant's contentions that at the grand jury proceedings the prosecutor knowingly allowed perjured testimony, permitted inadmissible hearsay, failed to present allegedly exculpatory information, and gave insufficient instructions to the grand jury, are not reviewable on appeal from a judgment of conviction that was based on legally sufficient trial evidence ( see CPL 210.30; People v Perry, 19 AD3d 619; People v Scoon, 303 AD2d 525; People v Shapiro, 117 AD2d 688). The defendant's contention that the People committed a Brady violation ( see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83) by failing to turn over information regarding the individual who allegedly handed him the razor blade used in the attack is without merit, since the information was provided to the defense before trial and was not exculpatory in nature ( see People v Brims, 19 AD3d 433; People v Carnett, 19 AD3d 703). His contention that the People committed a Brady violation by failing to turn over information regarding an interview allegedly held with that individual is unpreserved for appellate review.

  2. In re Raymond Rose

    232 A.D.2d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 2 times

    We note that prior to his first trial the petitioner challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented to the Grand Jury and the Supreme Court determined that the indictment was supported by legally sufficient evidence. Therefore, judicial review of this claim is barred under CPL 210.30 (6) by virtue of the fact that this Court previously determined that the evidence adduced at the petitioner's first trial under the instant indictment was legally sufficient to support the conviction ( see, People v Rose, 223 AD2d 607; People v Shapiro, 117 AD2d 688; see also, People v Miller, 65 NY2d 502, cert denied 474 US 951).

  3. People v. Wiemeier

    222 A.D.2d 972 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 5 times

    A judgment of conviction, based on legally sufficient trial evidence, precludes the raising of such issue on appeal ( see, CPL 210.30; People v Robinson, 133 A.D.2d 473, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1032; People v Shapiro, 117 A.D.2d 688, 689, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 950). However, in view of the order for reversal and a new trial, we will examine this question on the merits.

  4. People v. Martucci

    153 A.D.2d 866 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)   Cited 9 times

    In this case, the prosecutor properly exercised her discretion in limiting the testimony of the two witnesses designated by the respondent. A review of the record reveals that the proposed testimony was not substantively exculpatory, but pertained solely to the background and character of the victim and thus was collateral to the crucial question of whether there was legally sufficient evidence, which, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant conviction (see, People v. Shapiro, 117 A.D.2d 688, 689). Moreover, the proposed testimony was not of such a nature that it would have had a material influence upon the Grand Jury; rather, the proposed testimony involved factors bearing upon credibility, which testimony, if competent, is best presented to a petit jury (see, People v. Suarez, 122 A.D.2d 861, 862).

  5. People v. Easley

    152 A.D.2d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

    Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that the trial testimony was legally sufficient to prove the defendant guilty of the charge upon which he was convicted. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Although the defendant's brother testified that it was he, and not the defendant, who sold the drugs to the undercover officer, that testimony, which contradicted the testimony of the undercover officer, merely created a credibility issue which was resolved by the jury (see, People v Shapiro, 117 A.D.2d 688). We have reviewed the defendant's remaining argument and find it to be without merit.

  6. People v. Roman

    151 A.D.2d 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

    Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). The conflicting testimony adduced at trial merely created an issue of credibility which was resolved by the jury (People v. Shapiro, 117 A.D.2d 688). Finally, we have reviewed the defendant's remaining argument concerning the alleged excessiveness of his sentence, and find it to be without merit (People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Eiber, JJ., concur.

  7. People v. Thomas

    148 A.D.2d 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)   Cited 6 times

    , People v. Miller, 65 N.Y.2d 502, 511, cert denied 474 U.S. 951) or, alternatively, that it had been waived by defendant's failure to raise this objection in his first motion (see, People v. Nitzberg, 289 N.Y. 523, 530-531; People v. Pariser, 50 Misc.2d 727, 728-729), this error was harmless in light of our conclusion that the indictment and bill of particulars gave defendant adequate notice of the crime charged (see, People v. Morris, 61 N.Y.2d 290, 293-294). Defendant's contention that there was insufficient evidence presented to the Grand Jury is not properly before us on appeal (CPL 210.30) and defendant is limited to challenging only the legal sufficiency of the trial evidence (see, People v. Ali, 147 A.D.2d 847; People v. Shapiro, 117 A.D.2d 688, 689, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 950). Based upon the testimony of the correction officers who witnessed the incident and, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, there was ample evidence adduced at trial to support the conviction. Defendant also contends that County Court erred in refusing to require the prosecution to proceed at trial on an accomplice theory based on the fact that the indictment stated that the named defendants "each act[ed] in concert with the other".

  8. People v. Clerkin

    144 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)   Cited 6 times

    The complainant subsequently identified the defendant in a lineup conducted within hours of the robbery and identified the defendant at trial with certainty and in detail as the perpetrator of the crime. Upon the foregoing evidence, it was within the province of the triers of fact to resolve questions of credibility, including the accuracy of the complainant's identification (see, People v. Gomezgil, 135 A.D.2d 561, 562, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 1006; People v. Shapiro, 117 A.D.2d 688, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 950), and we perceive no reason on the record before us to disturb the court's findings in respect to these issues. Further, upon review of trial counsel's performance in conjunction with the law, the evidence and circumstances of the case (see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708-709; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147; People v. Vanterpool, 143 A.D.2d 282), we are not prepared to say that the defendant did not receive the effective assistance of counsel to which he was constitutionally entitled.

  9. People v. Pensen

    139 A.D.2d 602 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)   Cited 1 times

    Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to these crimes was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Additionally, there being legally sufficient evidence at trial to support the conviction on these charges, appellate review of the court's order denying dismissal of the indictment on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury is now foreclosed (see, CPL 210.30; People v. Shapiro, 117 A.D.2d 688, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 950). However, as conceded by the People, counts eight and nine of the indictment charging the crimes of criminal use of a firearm in the first degree must be dismissed because the underlying class B violent felony (manslaughter in the first degree) related solely to the charge of intentional murder, of which the defendant was acquitted.

  10. People v. Rosario, Williams

    138 A.D.2d 645 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)   Cited 3 times

    Finally, the deceased's statements to his family, shortly after the crime, were properly admitted into evidence as excited utterances, pursuant to the standard set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v. Edwards ( 47 N.Y.2d 493). We have reviewed the remaining arguments raised solely by the defendant Rosario and find them to be without merit (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; People v. Shapiro, 117 A.D.2d 688, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 950; People v. Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67; People v Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.