From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Doolittle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1996
226 A.D.2d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 15, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 20). 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 that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence are primarily for the jury which saw and heard the witnesses ( see, People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). The jury's determination to credit the testimony of the complaining witness and to discredit the defendant's alibi defense is entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see, People v. Bryan, 179 A.D.2d 667; People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). 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).

Since Police Officer Samuel Horn did not testify about the complaining witness's identification of the defendant and, instead, only testified that he arrested the defendant after conducting an investigation, the defendant's claim of bolstering is without merit ( see, People v. Polidore, 181 A.D.2d 835, 837; People v. Poindexter, 138 A.D.2d 418, 419).

Contrary to the defendant's claim, the defense counsel's decision not to cross-examine the People's witnesses was apparently strategically designed to underplay the identification testimony and to highlight the testimony by the defense alibi witnesses ( see, e.g., People v. Tomala, 182 A.D.2d 848, 849). A review of the entire record reveals that the defendant's attorney provided meaningful and effective representation ( see, People v Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 187; People v. Benn, 68 N.Y.2d 941, 942; People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798-800; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Doolittle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1996
226 A.D.2d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Doolittle

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICHARD DOOLITTLE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 15, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
641 N.Y.S.2d 556

Citing Cases

People v. Whitfield

The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). The defendant's remaining…