People v. Banks

• Decision Date: 08 February 1999
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 1005 The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Earl BANKS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 262

685 N.Y.S.2d 262

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 1005

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Earl BANKS, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

Feb. 8, 1999.

Leonard W. Jones, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Camille O'Hara Gillespie of counsel), for respondent.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered November 13, 1996, convicting him of kidnapping in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's general motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specific enough to preserve for appellate review his present challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence (see, People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, 859, 523 N.Y.S.2d 492, 518 N.E.2d 4; People v. Cannon, 224 A.D.2d 439, 638 N.Y.S.2d 324; People v. Pinder, 199 A.D.2d 544, 608 N.Y.S.2d 98). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), 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 jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 68 N.E. 112). 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, 353 N.Y.S.2d 500). 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 defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his present challenges to certain remarks made by the prosecution during his summation inasmuch as the defense counsel voiced only general objections to the comments (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Dien, 77 N.Y.2d 885, 568 N.Y.S.2d 899, 571 N.E.2d 69; People v. Fleming, 70 N.Y.2d 947, 524 N.Y.S.2d 670, 519 N.E.2d 616; People v. Utley, 45 N.Y.2d 908, 411 N.Y.S.2d 6, 383 N.E.2d 558). In any event, the prosecutor's remarks were a fair response to the defense summation, which suggested...