People v. Walts

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Young

    296 A.D.2d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 17 times

    Although much of the evidence linking defendant to the robbery and shooting depended upon the credibility of the testimony of Morrow, McKnight and Recard, convicted felons, our review of the record does not reveal that their testimony was manifestly untrue, physically impossible or contrary to human experience and, therefore, we will not consider the testimony incredible as a matter of law (see, People v. Wilson, 256 A.D.2d 637, 638, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 880). Inasmuch as matters affecting the witnesses' credibility were fully explored during their testimony, the jury was in the best position to assess their credibility (see, People v. Walts, 267 A.D.2d 617, 620, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 859) and the jury obviously credited the testimony which directly linked defendant to the robbery and shooting. Considering this testimony in the light of all the other evidence in the record, and according due deference to the jury's credibility determination (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, id.).

  2. People v. Stephanski

    286 A.D.2d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 10 times

    We conclude that the court properly determined that defendant's statement was voluntarily made ( see, CPL 60.45; People v. Torres, 186 A.D.2d 466, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 795), and that it therefore was admissible for impeachment purposes ( see, People v. Maerling, 64 N.Y.2d 134, 140; People v. Barnes, 239 A.D.2d 955, 955-956, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 901). We further conclude that the court's Sandoval ruling did not constitute an abuse of discretion ( see, People v. Walts, 267 A.D.2d 617, 618-619, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 859; People v. Trichilo, 230 A.D.2d 926, 928, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 931). The conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Defendant's contention that the court erroneously instructed the jury concerning accomplice liability is not preserved for our review ( see, CPL 470.05), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see, CPL 470.15 [a]).