People v. Harris
| Decision Date | 04 February 2005 |
| Docket Number | KA 03-00056. |
| Citation | 788 N.Y.S.2d 745,15 A.D.3d 966,2005 NY Slip Op 00860 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MARK HARRIS, Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony F. Aloi, J.), rendered December 20, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (four counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of four counts each of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (§ 220.09 [1]). In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (§ 220.18 [2]).
The contention of defendant that his conviction in appeal No. 1 is not based on legally sufficient evidence is not preserved for our review (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; see also People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]). In any event, that contention lacks merit. We note that, at trial, the People offered the testimony of an informant who testified as to four controlled drug buys he made from defendant on four different occasions, and offered evidence obtained through eavesdropping warrants that confirmed the drug activity of defendant. We also reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Where, as here, witness credibility is of paramount importance to the determination of guilt or innocence, the appellate court must give "[g]reat deference . . . [to the] fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor" (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Here, because the testimony of the informant was crucial to the determination by the jury, and the testimony of the informant indicated that his cooperation would result in a reduction of the term of his incarceration, it was for the jury to determine whether to credit the informant's testimony. The credibility determination is a task within the province of the jury, and its judgment should not be lightly disturbed (see People v Coleman, 278 AD2d 891 [2000], lv denied 96...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rumph
...v. Witherspoon, 66 A.D.3d 1456, 1457, 885 N.Y.S.2d 829, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 942, 895 N.Y.S.2d 333, 922 N.E.2d 922; People v. Harris, 15 A.D.3d 966, 967, 788 N.Y.S.2d 745, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 831, 796 N.Y.S.2d 586, 829 N.E.2d 679; see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, ......
-
People v. Shelton
...deference ... [to the] fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor’ ” ( People v. Harris, 15 A.D.3d 966, 967, 788 N.Y.S.2d 745,lv. denied4 N.Y.3d 831, 796 N.Y.S.2d 586, 829 N.E.2d 679, quoting Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E......
-
People v. Reid
...deference ... [to the] fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor’ " ( People v. Harris , 15 A.D.3d 966, 967, 788 N.Y.S.2d 745 [4th Dept. 2005], lv denied 4 N.Y.3d 831, 796 N.Y.S.2d 586, 829 N.E.2d 679 [2005], quoting People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y......
-
People v. Brown
...N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), and according great deference to the factfinder's resolution of credibility issues (see People v. Harris, 15 A.D.3d 966, 967, 788 N.Y.S.2d 745 [4th Dept. 2005], lv denied 4 N.Y.3d 831, 796 N.Y.S.2d 586, 829 N.E.2d 679 [2005] ), we conclude that the verdict on that count i......