People v. Bossett

• Decision Date: 16 January 1990
• Citation: 157 A.D.2d 734,550 N.Y.S.2d 29
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Darrell BOSSETT, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 29

550 N.Y.S.2d 29

157 A.D.2d 734

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Darrell BOSSETT, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

Jan. 16, 1990.

Jonathan C. Scott, St. James, for appellant.

James M. Catterson, Jr., Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Emily A. Constant and Glenn Green, of counsel, Andrew E. Curto, on the brief), for respondent.

Before LAWRENCE, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, EIBER and HARWOOD, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), rendered February 22, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

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 support the defendant's conviction (see also, People v. Bossett, 145 A.D.2d 639, 536 N.Y.S.2d 478; People v. Walker, 129 A.D.2d 658, 514 N.Y.S.2d 272, affd. 71 N.Y.2d 1018, 530 N.Y.S.2d 103, 525 N.E.2d 748, rearg. denied 72 N.Y.2d 953, 533 N.Y.S.2d 60, 529 N.E.2d 428). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15[5]. While it is true that several of the prosecution's witnesses were admittedly involved with illicit drugs and had criminal histories, the 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, 94, 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).

We also reject the defendant's claim that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial by virtue of the ineffective assistance of counsel. It is well established that the standard of review to be applied in evaluating the effectiveness of trial counsel's performance is meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400). When reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, care must be taken to avoid confusing true ineffectiveness with mere losing tactics and according undue significance to a hindsight analysis (see, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834; People v. Baldi, supra; People v. Aiken, 45 N.Y.2d 394, 408 N.Y.S.2d 444, 380 N.E.2d 272). In the case at bar, the record reveals that the defendant's counsel made appropriate motions for dismissal and we find that since he was not the first attorney at the trial to conduct cross-examination or summation, there was little else which could have been adduced or added to the defense presented by the codefendants' counsel.

Turning to the...