People v. Morales
| Decision Date | 17 March 2016 |
| Citation | 27 N.Y.S.3d 538,137 A.D.3d 576 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edgar MORALES, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
137 A.D.3d 576
27 N.Y.S.3d 538
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Edgar MORALES, Defendant–Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
March 17, 2016.
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York (Matthew E. Fishbein of counsel), for appellant.
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (David P. Johnson of counsel), for respondent.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., ANDRIAS, SAXE, KAPNICK, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Benitez, J.), rendered February 20, 2015, as amended, April 6, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, attempted murder in the second degree, gang assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and conspiracy in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 50 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing
the jury's credibility determinations, including its resolution of inconsistencies, and we reject defendant's argument that an accomplice witness's testimony was incredible as a matter of law (see People v. Fratello, 92 N.Y.2d 565, 574–575, 684 N.Y.S.2d 149, 706 N.E.2d 1173 [1998],cert. denied 526 U.S. 1068, 119 S.Ct. 1462, 143 L.Ed.2d 548 [1999] ). The accomplice corroboration requirement was satisfied by evidence that was essentially the same as at defendant's first trial. On the resulting appeal (86 A.D.3d 147, 161–162, 924 N.Y.S.2d 62 [1st Dept.2011], affd. in part and revd. in part on other grounds 20 N.Y.3d 240, 958 N.Y.S.2d 660, 982 N.E.2d 580 [2012] ), we found the corroborating evidence to be sufficient, and there is nothing in the evidence adduced at the retrial to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Devaughn v. Graham, 14-CV-2322 (NGG)
...others use "state of mind." Compare, e.g., Vasquez, 478 N.Y.S.2d at 948 ("mental culpability"), with e.g., People v. Morales, 27 N.Y.S.3d 538, 539 (App. Div. 2016) ("state of mind"), CJI2d[NY] Accessorial Liability, http://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Accessorial_Liability.Re......
- O'Connor v. Aerco Int'l, Inc.
-
Howard v. A.O. Smith Water Prods.
...pumps could have made their way on the relevant vessels after they were first commissioned (see Koulermos v. A.O. Smith Water Prods., 137 A.D.3d at 576, 27 N.Y.S.3d 157 ; Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 122 A.D.3d 520, 521, 997 N.Y.S.2d 381 [1st Dept. 2014] ; Matter of New York Cit......
- Miller v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co.
-
Submission to jury
...counsel and where the response itself did not fully or adequately answer the multiple questions asked by the jury People v. Morales , 137 A.D.3d 576, 27 N.Y.S.3d 538 (1st Dept. 2016). The defendant did not preserve his challenges to the court’s responses to notes from the deliberating jury ......
-
Submission to jury
...counsel and where the response itself did not fully or adequately answer the multiple questions asked by the jury People v. Morales , 137 A.D.3d 576, 27 N.Y.S.3d 538 (1st Dept. 2016). he defendant did not preserve his challenges to the court’s responses to notes from the deliberating jury r......
-
Submission to jury
...counsel and where the response itself did not fully or adequately answer the multiple questions asked by the jury People v. Morales , 137 A.D.3d 576, 27 N.Y.S.3d 538 (1st Dept. 2016). he defendant did not preserve his challenges to the court’s responses to notes from the deliberating jury r......
-
Submission to jury
...counsel and where the response itself did not fully or adequately answer the multiple questions asked by the jury People v. Morales , 137 A.D.3d 576, 27 N.Y.S.3d 538 (1st Dept. 2016). he defendant did not preserve his challenges to the court’s responses to notes from the deliberating jury r......