People v. Heyward

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation160 A.D.2d 470,554 N.Y.S.2d 142
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael HEYWARD, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date17 April 1990

C. Welykyj, New York City, for respondent.

J. Legano, New York City, for defendant-appellant.



Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard T. Andrias, J., at suppression hearing, jury trial and sentence), rendered March 31, 1988, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to respective indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 5 to 10 and 3 to 6 years, to run concurrently, is unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's contention that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt since complainant's testimony, that defendant's accomplice brandished a knife during the robbery, was absent from the arresting officer's memo book notations, is without merit. This issue, based upon credibility only, was squarely placed before the jury and resolved in favor of the People. We decline to disturb that finding ( People v. Mosley, 112 A.D.2d 812, 814, 492 N.Y.S.2d 403, affd 67 N.Y.2d 985, 502 N.Y.S.2d 993, 494 N.E.2d 98). In crediting complainant's testimony, we find that the People proved defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of any rational trier of facts ( People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932).

Defendant's further contention that the prosecutor's summation remarks deprived him of a fair trial is also without merit. When defendant objected that the prosecutor tended to shift the burden of proof to the defense, the court immediately gave an unobjected-to curative instruction. When the prosecutor later committed the same error, the court overruled defense counsel's objection but, in its main charge, clearly stated the appropriate burden of proof.

Defendant's remaining contentions have not, as a matter of law, been preserved for review and, accordingly, we decline to consider them (CPL 470.05). In any event, if we were to consider them in the interest of justice, we would find them meritless.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People v. Roman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 7 de janeiro de 1992
    ...raised concerning the alleged inconsistencies in the victim's testimony were matters properly before the jury (People v. Heyward, 160 A.D.2d 470, 554 N.Y.S.2d 142; People v. Mosley, 112 A.D.2d 812, 814, 492 N.Y.S.2d 403, aff'd 67 N.Y.2d 985, 502 N.Y.S.2d 993, 494 N.E.2d 98) as was the issue......
  • People v. Chang
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 17 de abril de 1990

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT