People v. Chase
Decision Date | 31 March 2009 |
Docket Number | 2007-11060 |
Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMAL CHASE, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the facts, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.
The defendant was convicted of robbery in the second degree and assault in the third degree in connection with an incident that occurred on July 26, 2006, at 7:30 A.M., in Middletown, New York. The jury found that the defendant exited a vehicle that pulled up next to three teenage boys who were walking to school, punched one of the boys, and chased after another of the boys, from whom he forcibly stole two dollars.
The defendant's argument that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his identity is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Folkes, 43 AD3d 956 [2007]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620; 621 [1983]), it was legally sufficient to establish his identity as the person who committed the robbery and assault.
However, upon the exercise of our independent factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we find that the verdict of guilt was against the weight of the evidence. (People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]; see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]; People v Bornhoeft, 53 AD3d 666 [2008]). "Essentially, the court sits as a thirteenth juror and decides which facts were proven at trial" (People v Danielson, 9 NY3d at 348). Here, the evidence offered to establish the defendant's identity as the assailant was equivocal and unconvincing. Only one of the six eyewitnesses proffered by the People affirmatively made an in-court identification of the defendant as the assailant, and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Jenkins
...621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), it was legally sufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator ( see People v. Chase, 60 A.D.3d 1077, 1078, 876 N.Y.S.2d 485). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not ......
-
People v. Bailey
...we sit, in effect, as the “thirteenth juror” ( People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d at 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1;see People v. Chase, 60 A.D.3d 1077, 1078, 876 N.Y.S.2d 485). In conducting our weight-of-the-evidence analysis, we must first determine, based upon the credible evidence, whe......
-
People v. Jones
...(see People v Graham, 107 A.D.3d 1296, 1298 [3d Dept 2013]; People v St. Andrews, 82 A.D.3d 1356, 1358 [3d Dept 2011]; People v Chase, 60 A.D.3d 1077, 1079 [2d Dept 2009]; People v McCoy, 266 A.D.2d 589, 592 [3d Dept lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 905 [2000]). Based on this determination, defendant's ......
-
People v. Russell
...juror and decides which facts were proven at trial," (Danielson at 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1; see People v. Chase, 60 A.D.3d 1077, 876 N.Y.S.2d 485 [2009] ). In People v. Delamota, 18 N.Y.3d 107, 936 N.Y.S.2d 614, 960 N.E.2d 383 [2012], both the majority and dissent raised concern......