People v. Martinez
| Decision Date | 27 January 2009 |
| Docket Number | 2007-00396. |
| Citation | 58 A.D.3d 870,2009 NY Slip Op 00560,873 N.Y.S.2d 128 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JUAN MARTINEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of each crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 NY3d 342 [2007]), 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 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on each count was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that identification testimony should have been suppressed because the lineup in which he participated was unduly suggestive is without merit. Although the defendant was the only participant in the lineup wearing shackles around his ankles, the hearing court credited the testimony of the witnesses who identified the defendant in the lineup that they could not see below the participants' waists, and thus did not see the shackles. The credibility determinations of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Wynter, 48 AD3d 492 [2008]). On this record, there is no basis to disturb the hearing court's determination.
The defendant's contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hargrove
...are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" ( People v. Martinez, 58 A.D.3d 870, 870–871, 873 N.Y.S.2d 128 ; see People v. Britton, 49 A.D.3d 893, 894, 853 N.Y.S.2d 897 ). The Court of Appeals has similarly recognized that "......
-
People v. Foster
...are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" ( People v. Martinez, 58 A.D.3d 870, 870–871, 873 N.Y.S.2d 128 ). The record supports the hearing court's determination to credit a police officer's testimony that he observed the ......
-
People v. Davis
...are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” ( People v. Martinez, 58 A.D.3d 870, 870–871, 873 N.Y.S.2d 128). “ ‘[A]s a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to ......
-
People v. Tandle
...are accorded great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see People v. Martinez, 58 A.D.3d 870, 870, 873 N.Y.S.2d 128; People v. Jackson, 65 A.D.3d 1164, 885 N.Y.S.2d 213; People v. Rivera, 59 A.D.3d 467, 873 N.Y.S.2d 157). The record supp......