People v. Bossett

• Decision Date: 30 December 1988
• Citation: 145 A.D.2d 639,536 N.Y.S.2d 478
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Michael BOSSETT a/k/a Robaz, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 478

536 N.Y.S.2d 478

145 A.D.2d 639

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Michael BOSSETT a/k/a Robaz, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Dec. 30, 1988.

Andrew J. Orensky, Coram, for appellant.

Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Emily A. Constant, of counsel), for respondent.

Before BROWN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, WEINSTEIN and EIBER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme 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. 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).

The defendant contends that the prosecution's witnesses, because of their criminal histories and involvement with illegal drugs, should not have been believed by the jury. However, 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). 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).

Since the defendant did not request a charge on circumstantial evidence, any error in failing to give such a charge is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05). Moreover, the court's charge on the issue of where the crime was committed was sufficient (see, People v. Botta, 100 A.D.2d 311, 314, 474 N.Y.S.2d 72).

Finally, we have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).