People v. Soto
| Decision Date | 28 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | 2001-09693. |
| Citation | 8 A.D.3d 683,2004 NY Slip Op 05682,779 N.Y.S.2d 251 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. STEVEN SOTO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contentions, the defendant's appellate challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence of his intent to commit attempted murder in the second degree is preserved for review, as the defendant raised this issue with sufficient specificity in his motion, pursuant to CPL 290.10, for a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People's case (see People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]; People v Olaya, 1 AD3d 615 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 632 [2004]). The People's reliance upon People v Hines (97 NY2d 56 [2001]) to support their assertion that the issue is not preserved is misplaced. Hines clearly holds that when a defendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People's case is denied, and the defendant thereafter presents witnesses whose testimony supplies additional evidence of guilt, the defendant waives his right to attack the quantum of proof adduced by the People during their case-in-chief. The issue is one of waiver, not preservation (cf. People v Abarrategui, 306 AD2d 20, 21 [2003]). The Court of Appeals in Hines clearly did not intend to announce sweeping changes in the rules of preservation applicable to legal sufficiency challenges generally. To the extent our decision in People v Harris (300 AD2d 675 [2002]) appears to hold to the contrary, it is hereby overruled. We take this opportunity to reiterate our adherence to the prevailing rule that a motion pursuant to CPL 290.10 made at the close of the People's case asserting specific grounds is sufficient to preserve those arguments in a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.
Viewing all of the evidence at trial 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. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight of the evidence presented, are primarily questions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Serrano
...degree ( see People v. Dehaarte, 65 A.D.3d 593, 883 N.Y.S.2d 723; People v. John, 51 A.D.3d 819, 820, 859 N.Y.S.2d 456; People v. Soto, 8 A.D.3d 683, 684, 779 N.Y.S.2d 251; People v. Gardella, 5 A.D.3d 695, 774 N.Y.S.2d 740). Moreover, upon the exercise of our independent factual review pow......
-
People v. Anthony
...dismissal at the close of the People's case ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Albert, 40 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 834 N.Y.S.2d 884;People v. Soto, 8 A.D.3d 683, 684, 779 N.Y.S.2d 251;compare People v. Finger, 95 N.Y.2d 894, 895, 716 N.Y.S.2d 34, 739 N.E.2d 290). Viewing the evidence in the light mos......
-
People v. Williams
...on this ground at the close of the People's case (see People v. Finch, 23 N.Y.3d 408, 991 N.Y.S.2d 552, 15 N.E.3d 307 ; People v. Soto, 8 A.D.3d 683, 779 N.Y.S.2d 251 ). Nevertheless, the record does not support an inference that the defendant's mental state was so affected by his consumpti......
-
People v. Paquiot
...claim that the evidence supporting her convictions was legally insufficient is preserved for appellate review (see People v. Soto, 8 A.D.3d 683, 684, 779 N.Y.S.2d 251 ). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.......