From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gavins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 3, 1986
118 A.D.2d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

March 3, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

The standard for reviewing the legal sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). In the instant case, a rational trier of fact could certainly have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed robbery in the second degree.

Two police officers testified as to their observations of the defendant's participation in the crime. Neither officer expressed any confusion as to what he saw. Furthermore, the victim's testimony corresponds exactly to the officers' testimony. The complainant identified the defendant as one of his assailants within minutes of the crime, and, again, in the courtroom at the trial. The defendant's own testimony contained numerous inconsistencies.

It is well settled that "`[t]he resolution of questions relating to the credibility of witnesses is properly a function of the jury and * * * may not be overturned lightly on appeal'" (People v. Gross, 111 A.D.2d 873, quoting from People v Rodriguez, 72 A.D.2d 571). Under the circumstances, the jury's verdict is well supported by the evidence and should remain undisturbed.

Finally, the defendant did not preserve any legal issue as to the propriety of the prosecutor's cross-examination and summation (see, CPL 470.15; People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396). In any event, none of the alleged improprieties deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Roopchand, 65 N.Y.2d 837). Both the prosecutor's cross-examination of the defendant and his summation did not occur in a vacuum; rather, they were responsive to the defense counsel's allegations that the police witnesses had lied.

Under the circumstances, a reversal of the judgment of conviction is not warranted. Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Gavins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 3, 1986
118 A.D.2d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Gavins

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ELBERT GAVINS…

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

Date published: Mar 3, 1986

Citations

118 A.D.2d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. White

Furthermore, we find that the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor's summation.…

People v. Valero

The defendant contends that his guilt was not established because of inconsistencies in the complainant's…