People v. Roseboro
| Decision Date | 20 April 1992 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. William ROSEBORO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Russell C. Morea, Kew Gardens, for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Alexander P. Schlinger, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and MILLER, O'BRIEN and SANTUCCI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.), rendered June 15, 1989, convicting him of assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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. Although there were minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the principal prosecution witnesses, it is well settled that the 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). 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 court properly amended the indictment to read that the defendant acted in concert "with another" instead of with the codefendant. The amendment neither changed the theory of the People's case nor prejudiced the defendant in his defense (see, People v. Cepedes, 130 A.D.2d 676, 515 N.Y.S.2d 602; People v. Johnson, 87 A.D.2d 829, 448 N.Y.S.2d 754).
Moreover, in view of a defense witness's testimony on direct examination that he had never been arrested, the court properly exercised its discretion in permitting cross-examination of the witness regarding his arrest record (see, People v. Crosby, 176 A.D.2d 266, 574 N.Y.S.2d 299; People v. McCullough, 141 A.D.2d 856, 859, 530 N.Y.S.2d 198).
Photographic identification testimony was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Allen
...Dorfeuille, 91 A.D.3d 1023, 1023–1024, 936 N.Y.S.2d 377,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 996, 951 N.Y.S.2d 472, 975 N.E.2d 918;People v. Roseboro, 182 A.D.2d 784, 785, 582 N.Y.S.2d 780). Defendant's contention that the amendment changed the theory of the prosecution is erroneous inasmuch as “[w]hether a......
-
People v. Hyland, 2017–00894
...200.70 ; People v. Davis, 273 A.D.2d 476, 712 N.Y.S.2d 363 ; People v. Christie, 210 A.D.2d 497, 620 N.Y.S.2d 990 ; People v. Roseboro, 182 A.D.2d 784, 785, 582 N.Y.S.2d 780 ; People v. Budhai, 182 A.D.2d 693, 582 N.Y.S.2d 730 ). DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, MILLER and IANNACCI, JJ., ...
- People v. Raffaele
-
People v. Christie
...v. Guidice, 83 N.Y.2d 630, 612 N.Y.S.2d 350, 634 N.E.2d 951; People v. McEachin, 188 A.D.2d 433, 591 N.Y.S.2d 1023; People v. Roseboro, 182 A.D.2d 784, 582 N.Y.S.2d 780; People v. Gaskin, 184 A.D.2d 525, 586 N.Y.S.2d We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including the issu......