People v. Baliukonis
| Decision Date | 12 December 2006 |
| Docket Number | 2005-06897.,No. 9067/03.,9067/03. |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RIMVYDAS BALIUKONIS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
The defendant's contention that the People failed to prove his identity as one of the perpetrators beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not specify this ground in his motion to dismiss at trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Rodriguez, 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), 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 NY 84, 94 [1903]). 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 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). 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 [5]).
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to the police. The factual findings and credibility determinations of the Supreme Court following a suppression hearing are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Tissiera, 22 AD3d 611 [2005]). Here, the Supreme Court properly found that the defendant's spontaneous statement, made after a police officer arrested him but before Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) were administered, was not triggered by any police conduct which could reasonably have been expected to evoke a declaration from him (see People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476, 480 [1982]; People v West, 237 AD2d 315 [1997]). Additionally, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant's statements after the Miranda warnings were administered were voluntarily made after he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Johnson
...“are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” (People v. Baliukonis, 35 A.D.3d 626, 627, 829 N.Y.S.2d 112 ; see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d at 413, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Oliver, 87 A.D.3d 1035, 1036, 929 ......
-
People v. Dunbar
...are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" ( People v. Baliukonis, 35 A.D.3d 626, 627, 829 N.Y.S.2d 112 ; see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380 ; People v. Blinker, 80 A.D.3d at 620, 9......
-
People v. White
...are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" ( People v. Baliukonis, 35 A.D.3d 626, 627, 829 N.Y.S.2d 112 ; see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380 ; People v. Blinker, 80 A.D.3d 619, 915 ......
-
People v. Grant
...; People v. Johnson, 139 A.D.3d at 970, 34 N.Y.S.3d 62 ; People v. Hobson, 111 A.D.3d 958, 959, 975 N.Y.S.2d 682 ; People v. Baliukonis, 35 A.D.3d 626, 627, 829 N.Y.S.2d 112 ). Here, the defendant contends that law enforcement officials deceived him by implying that making statements agains......