People v. Metts

• Decision Date: 08 June 1992
• Citation: 584 N.Y.S.2d 644,184 A.D.2d 592
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Raynard METTS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 644

584 N.Y.S.2d 644

184 A.D.2d 592

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Raynard METTS, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

June 8, 1992.

Sally Wasserman, New York City, for appellant.

Raynard Metts, pro se.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Victor Barall, and James B. Duggan, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MANGANO, P.J., and BRACKEN, BALLETTA and O'BRIEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered December 11, 1989, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

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's contention that the testimony of the People's witnesses who identified him was incredible as a matter of law because they each had a motive to lie and because one of them had previously given perjured testimony before the Grand Jury in an unrelated case is without merit. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily matters for the jury to determine (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 68 N.E. 112). Its determination is to be accorded great deference on appeal and should not be disturbed unless it is 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 also claims that the court erred in failing to hold a hearing to determine whether a witness who did not testify at trial would have provided exculpatory evidence. However, inasmuch as the defendant failed to request such a hearing and, in fact, agreed to the instruction that the court proposed be read to the jury concerning that witness's potential testimony, his claim has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Jones, 81 A.D.2d 22, 41-42, 440 N.Y.S.2d 248).

Contrary to the defendant's assertion, we find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions,...