People v. McGlothin
| Decision Date | 05 April 2004 |
| Docket Number | 2002-03560. |
| Citation | 6 A.D.3d 462,773 N.Y.S.2d 883,2004 NY Slip Op 02607 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN McGLOTHIN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925 [1994]). Moreover, 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, which saw and heard the witnesses (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). 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 [1974]). 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]).
The County Court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the defendant's cross-examination of a witness concerning the potential motive of another person to commit the murders with which the defendant was charged. The defense counsel's offer of proof concerning that other person's purported motive was illogical, and the evidence he sought to elicit was "too slight, remote [and] conjectural to have any legitimate influence in determining the fact in issue" (People v Martinez, 177 AD2d 600, 601 [1991]; see People v Primo, 96 NY2d 351 [2001]; People v Sawyer, 304 AD2d 775 [2003]).
Nor did the County Court improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting into evidence certain photographs and X-rays of the deceased victims, since those items tended "to prove . . . material issue[s]," and "to illustrate or elucidate other relevant evidence" (People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 369 [1973], cert denied 416 US 905 [1974]).
The County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Legere
...collateral and only marginally relevant issues ( see People v. Francisco, 44 A.D.3d 870, 870, 843 N.Y.S.2d 439;People v. McGlothin, 6 A.D.3d 462, 463, 773 N.Y.S.2d 883; People v. Barney, 277 A.D.2d 460, 715 N.Y.S.2d 758). Likewise, the Supreme Court did not err in denying the defendant's ap......
-
People v. Taylor
...People v. Pena, 113 A.D.3d 701, 702, 978 N.Y.S.2d 693 ; People v. Francisco, 44 A.D.3d 870, 870, 843 N.Y.S.2d 439 ; People v. McGlothin, 6 A.D.3d 462, 463, 773 N.Y.S.2d 883 ).The defendant's claim that the Supreme Court deprived him of his right to a fair trial and his right to counsel by i......
-
People v. Herrera-Machuca
...complainant had a motive to fabricate her testimony, was too remote and speculative and lacked any factual basis (see People v. McGlothin, 6 A.D.3d 462, 773 N.Y.S.2d 883 ; People v. Barney, 277 A.D.2d 460, 715 N.Y.S.2d 758 ; People v. Stewart, 188 A.D.2d 626, 591 N.Y.S.2d 483 ). Upon our re......
- People v. McFadden