People v. Henry

• Decision Date: 01 February 1999
• Citation: 258 A.D.2d 473,685 N.Y.S.2d 100
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>MARK HENRY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

258 A.D.2d 473

685 N.Y.S.2d 100

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v.MARK HENRY, Appellant.

Decided February 1, 1999.

Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In general, the legality of a search or seizure is to be measured by the objective circumstances, and not by the subjective motivation of the officer (see, Whren v United States, 517 US 806; People v Sira, 254 AD2d 311; People v Alcide, 252 AD2d 591; People v Dougherty, 251 AD2d 344; People v Gelley, 242 AD2d 277; People v Reynolds, 240 AD2d 517; People v McCoy, 239 AD2d 437). Here, the stop of the defendant's vehicle was objectively valid based on the officer's personal observation of a traffic violation, namely, that the vehicle did not have its headlights on at 11:40 P.M., and "is no less valid merely because the officer might also have been entertaining more serious suspicions" (People v Dougherty, supra, at 345; see, Whren v United States, supra; People v Blasich, 73 NY2d 673; People v Adams, 53 NY2d 1, 10-11, cert denied 454 US 854; People v McCoy, supra, at 439). Under the circumstances, there is no merit to the defendant's suggestion that the stop of the vehicle was racially motivated and therefore constituted an equal protection violation.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, who saw and heard the witness (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). 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 AD2d 86, 88). On this record, there is no basis to disturb the trial court's determination.