People v. Martin

• Decision Date: 05 June 1995
• Citation: 627 N.Y.S.2d 774,216 A.D.2d 329
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jamal MARTIN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 774

627 N.Y.S.2d 774

216 A.D.2d 329

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jamal MARTIN, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

June 5, 1995.

Feldman and Feldman, Hauppauge (Steven A. Feldman, of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, Linda Cantoni, and Melissa G. Vaughan, of counsel), for respondent.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and COPERTINO, KRAUSMAN and FLORIO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), rendered August 12, 1991, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence (see, CPL 470.05[2]. In any event, viewing the evidence 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. The defendant contends that the People's witnesses should not have been believed by the jury. However, 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 jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94, 68 N.E. 112). 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). 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 (CPL 470.15[5].

The defendant additionally failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether the court improperly allowed testimony concerning the contents of certain police radio transmissions in which he was described (see, CPL 470.05[2]. In any event, the court properly permitted such testimony to explain why the arresting officer arrested the defendant and to avoid speculation by the jury (see, People v. Burrus, 182 A.D.2d 634, 582 N.Y.S.2d 235; People v. Love, 92 A.D.2d 551, 553, 459 N.Y.S.2d 122).

The People correctly concede that the evidence that the defendant possessed money at the time of his arrest, other than the pre-recorded purchase money,...