People v. Hall
| Decision Date | 29 September 2009 |
| Docket Number | 2007-05291. |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CONNIE HALL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that she used a "dangerous instrument" to injure the complainant is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant used a dangerous instrument to injure the complainant (see Penal Law § 10.00 [13]; § 120.05 [2]). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence was legally sufficient to disprove her justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 35.15 [1] [b]; People v Acquista, 41 AD3d 491, 492 [2007]; People v Suphal, 7 AD3d 547, 547-548 [2004]; People v Williams, 304 AD2d 595 [2003]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contentions regarding the jury instruction concerning "dangerous instruments," and the denial of her request for a charge on the justifiable use of "ordinary physical force," are without merit. The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foddrell v. Lavalley
...(Id.; see also People v. Simon, 224 A.D.2d 458, 459, 638 N.Y.S.2d 113; People v. Horney, 112 A.D.2d 841, 493 N.Y.S.2d 130).Foddrell, 65 A.D.3d at 1377. This finding was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Due process requires "a jury capable and willin......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...and to establish his guilt of assault in the first and second degrees beyond a reasonable doubt ( see Penal Law § 35.15; People v. Hall, 65 A.D.3d 1377, 886 N.Y.S.2d 743; People v. Pickens, 60 A.D.3d 699, 701, 874 N.Y.S.2d 570; People v. Chung, 39 A.D.3d 558, 835 N.Y.S.2d 223; People v. Wim......
-
People v. Syville
...the complainant is without merit (see Penal Law § 35.10[1] ; People v. Lyons, 94 A.D.3d 1020, 1021, 942 N.Y.S.2d 213 ; People v. Hall, 65 A.D.3d 1377, 1378, 886 N.Y.S.2d 743 ; People v. Jackson, 243 A.D.2d 653, 653, 668 N.Y.S.2d 892 ). The evidence presented at the defendant's trial provide......
- People v. Foddrell, 2004-08417.