People v. Howard
| Decision Date | 09 January 1995 |
| Citation | 621 N.Y.S.2d 887,211 A.D.2d 643 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Marcello HOWARD, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Peter C. Roth, Rockaway Park, for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Ruth E. Ross, and Danna Robbins, of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rivera, J.), rendered November 10, 1992, convicting him of murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]. In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (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 the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 68 N.E. 112). Its determination is entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 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 (see, CPL 470.15[5].
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial