People v. Headley
| Decision Date | 06 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Ind. No. 601/10,2014-05892 |
| Citation | 170 A.D.3d 746,95 N.Y.S.3d 329 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. John HEADLEY, Appellant. |
170 A.D.3d 746
95 N.Y.S.3d 329
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
John HEADLEY, Appellant.
2014-05892
Ind. No. 601/10
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued - October 22, 2018
March 6, 2019
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Melissa S. Horlick of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Rhea A. Grob of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mark Dwyer, J.), rendered May 8, 2014, convicting him of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (four counts) and rewarding official misconduct in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions of two counts of
offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree based upon his transmission of two emails containing false or misleading information to the Law Department of the New York City Transit Authority is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Davidson, 150 A.D.3d 1142, 1143, 55 N.Y.S.3d 357 ). In any event, 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 establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant's guilt of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree with respect to these two counts (see Penal Law § 175.35 ; People v. Taylor, 82 A.D.3d 1016, 1017, 919 N.Y.S.2d 62 ; Norman v. Hynes, 20 A.D.3d 125, 132, 799 N.Y.S.2d 222 ). 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 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), 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 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to those two counts was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court
did not err...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Edwards
...N.Y.S.3d 854 ), but also affirmatively waived (see People v. Sampson, 289 A.D.2d 1022, 1023, 735 N.Y.S.2d 283 ; cf. People v. Headley, 170 A.D.3d 746, 747, 95 N.Y.S.3d 329 ). In any event, where a defendant consents beforehand, a court may furnish the jury with evidentiary exhibits without ......
-
People v. Nunez-Garcia
..., 87 N.Y.2d 477, 487, 640 N.Y.S.2d 451, 663 N.E.2d 607 ; People v. Croom , 171 A.D.3d 781, 783, 97 N.Y.S.3d 262 ; People v. Headley , 170 A.D.3d 746, 747, 95 N.Y.S.3d 329 ). The court's handling of this note requesting evidentiary exhibits did not implicate either CPL 310.30 or the notice p......
-
People v. Croom
...without reconvening (see CPL 310.20[1] ; People v. Damiano, 87 N.Y.2d 477, 487, 640 N.Y.S.2d 451, 663 N.E.2d 607 ; People v. Headley, 170 A.D.3d 746, 95 N.Y.S.3d 329 [2d Dept.] ; cf. People v. Roberites, 115 A.D.3d 1291, 1292–1293, 983 N.Y.S.2d 377 ; see generally William C. Donnino, Practi......
-
People v. Whitfield
...handling of a jury note requesting evidentiary exhibits does not implicate CPL 310.30 or the O'Rama requirements (see People v. Headley, 170 A.D.3d 746, 747, 95 N.Y.S.3d 329 ; People v. Zelaya, 147 A.D.3d 986, 987, 47 N.Y.S.3d 417 ; People v. Bryant, 82 A.D.3d 1114, 919 N.Y.S.2d 341 ). Addi......
-
Introduction
...damages for any claimed retaliatory acts occurring prior to the date of the right of action under the Act. NEW YORK People v. Headley , 170 A.D.3d 746, 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). Evidence of defendant’s prior bad acts was admissible in prosecution for offering a false instrument for filing ......