People v. White
| Decision Date | 26 April 1993 |
| Citation | 597 N.Y.S.2d 117,192 A.D.2d 736 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edward WHITE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Walter Evans, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Seth M. Lieberman and Quentin Moore, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and RITTER, COPERTINO and SANTUCCI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered November 13, 1990, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts) and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the People failed to prove his identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt, since he did not raise this issue on his motion for a trial order of dismissal due to the People's failure to prove a prima facie case or on his motion to set aside the verdict (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Johnson, 185 A.D.2d 247, 586 N.Y.S.2d 136; People v. Asaro, 182 A.D.2d 823, 582 N.Y.S.2d 790; People v. Rios, 180 A.D.2d 696, 580 N.Y.S.2d 44). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at 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 beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's identity as the individual who burglarized the complainants' home and robbed the complainants. The complainants had an ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the incident, and were able to identify him at a subsequent lineup.
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that because of certain inconsistencies between the testimony of two of the complainants and the police officers regarding a photograph array, the jury should not have believed the complainants' identification testimony (see, People v. Caballero, 177 A.D.2d 496, 575 N.Y.S.2d 710). Equally without merit is the defendant's contention that because of certain discrepancies between the complainants' description of the robber on the night of the incident and at trial, the complainants should not have been believed by the jury (see, People v. Caban, 120 A.D.2d 603, 502 N.Y.S.2d 78). Furthermore, the minor discrepancies in the height and weight given in the identification testimony and the defendant's appearance, did not render the identification testimony incredible as a matter of law (see, People v. Rios, supra; People v. Caballero, supra; People v. Delfino, 150 A.D.2d 718, 541 N.Y.S.2d 588). Resolutions 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mendez v. Graham
...victims '"within a single extended transaction,'" Oyague v. Artuz, 393 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting People v. White, 597 N.Y.S.2d 117, 119 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)). Further, New York courts have held that the imposition of consecutive prison sentences for such separate and distinct ac......
-
Oyague v. Artuz
...upheld consecutive sentences for robberies of separate victims "within a single extended transaction." People v. White, 192 A.D.2d 736, 737, 597 N.Y.S.2d 117 (2nd Dep't 1993); see also People v. Niles, 258 A.D.2d 478, 479, 685 N.Y.S.2d 104 (2nd Dep't 1999) (same); People v. Brathwaite, 63 N......
-
People v. Robinson
...his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v Rivera, 275 A.D.2d 802; People v White, 192 A.D.2d 736). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find......
-
People v. Salamone
...People v. Dieppa, 285 A.D.2d 558, 558–559, 727 N.Y.S.2d 898; People v. Rosa, 249 A.D.2d 334, 335, 670 N.Y.S.2d 348; People v. White, 192 A.D.2d 736, 737, 597 N.Y.S.2d 117; People v. Higgins, 137 A.D.2d 620, 620–621, 524 N.Y.S.2d 508). The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. S......