People v. Hart

Decision Date31 May 1988
Citation140 A.D.2d 711,529 N.Y.S.2d 29
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jimmy HART, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Carlucci & Legum, Mineola (Robert J. Carlucci, of counsel), for appellant.

John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Alexander P. Schlinger, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MOLLEN, P.J., and MANGANO, BROWN and KUNZEMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Eiber, J.), rendered October 24, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

On the instant appeal, the defendant argues, inter alia, that his guilt was not proven since the victim's eyewitness testimony concerning the alleged robbery on January 14, 1983, was rebutted by the testimony of several alibi witnesses.We disagree.Whether the alibi witnesses' testimony was sufficient to overcome the identification testimony of the victim is a question primarily for the jury to resolve ( see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94, 68 N.E. 112;People v. Herriot, 110 A.D.2d 851, 488 N.Y.S.2d 251).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[5] ).

The defendant also argues on the instant appeal, that he was deprived of a fair trial by reason of (1) an insufficient charge on the issue of identification, (2) an unbalanced and coercive Allen charge, and (3) improper bolstering testimony concerning the victim's prior identification of the defendant.Again, we disagree.

An examination of the record indicates that no exception was taken to the court's Allen charge, and the defendant's argument with respect thereto has therefore not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2] ).In any event, upon reading the Allen charge as a whole, as well as that part of the charge which was given on the issue of identification, we are satisfied that the applicable principles of law were adequately conveyed to the jury ( see, People v. Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 469 N.Y.S.2d 693, 457 N.E.2d 800;People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 464 N.Y.S.2d 454, 451 N.E.2d 212;People v....

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
8 cases
  • People v. Polidore
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 23 Marzo 1992
    ...230, 443 N.E.2d 478; People v. Veal, 158 A.D.2d 633, 551 N.Y.S.2d 602; People v. Bailey, 155 A.D.2d 467, 547 N.Y.S.2d 646; People v. Hart, 140 A.D.2d 711; People v. Perez, 127 A.D.2d 707, 511 N.Y.S.2d 687; People v. Vasquez, 120 A.D.2d 757, 502 N.Y.S.2d The present case is distinguishable, ......
  • People v. Williams
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 6 Octubre 1989
    ...testimony did constitute improper bolstering (see, People v. Holt, 67 N.Y.2d 819, 821, 501 N.Y.S.2d 641, 492 N.E.2d 769; People v. Hart, 140 A.D.2d 711, 529 N.Y.S.2d 29, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 919, 532 N.Y.S.2d 853, 529 N.E.2d 183; People v. Love, 135 A.D.2d 1099, 523 N.Y.S.2d 317), the error......
  • People v. Soto
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 17 Enero 1989
    ...v. Holt, 67 N.Y.2d 819, 821, 501 N.Y.S.2d 641, 492 N.E.2d 769; People v. Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471, 113 N.E.2d 841; People v. Hart, 140 A.D.2d 711, 529 N.Y.S.2d 29, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 919, 532 N.Y.S.2d 853, 529 N.E.2d 183; People v. Eleby, 137 A.D.2d 707, 525 N.Y.S.2d 53, lv. denied 71 N.Y......
  • People v. Gordillo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 1 Marzo 1993
    ...this error must be considered harmless (see, People v. Holt, supra; People v. Bailey, 155 A.D.2d 467, 547 N.Y.S.2d 646; People v. Hart, 140 A.D.2d 711, 529 N.Y.S.2d 29). We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they do not warrant ...
  • Get Started for Free