Opinion
August 28, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the jury should not have believed the prosecution's witness because of her involvement with illegal drugs, and because of certain inconsistencies in her accounts of the incident. We find that the inconsistencies were neither substantial nor so disparate as to require the negation of the jury's verdict. In addition, the witness's use of drugs and her condition at the time of the crime did not render her testimony incompetent, but were factors to be considered by the jury on the issue of her credibility (see generally, Annotation, Competency of Witness — Drug Use, 65 ALR3d 705, 716; 2 Wharton, Criminal Evidence § 357 [Torcia 14th ed]; 3A Wigmore, Evidence § 934 [Chadbourn rev]).
Issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be assessed by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). 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). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). Kooper, J.P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.