People v. Jenkins

Full title: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. MICHAEL JENKINS; Defendant.

Court: Supreme Court, Westchester County

Date published: Nov 16, 2021

2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 34003 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

Opinion

No. 20-00233-01

11-16-2021

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. MICHAEL JENKINS; Defendant.

Steven A. Bender Assistant District Attorney Westchester County Office of the District Attorney. Nicholas W. Hicks, Esq. Samuel P. Davis, Esq., Attorneys for Defendant.

ROBERT A. NEARY, J.

Unpublished Opinion

Steven A. Bender Assistant District Attorney Westchester County Office of the District Attorney.

Nicholas W. Hicks, Esq. Samuel P. Davis, Esq., Attorneys for Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

ROBERT A. NEARY, J.

The defendant moves for an order of this Court vacating a jury verdict of guilty.

The defendant contends that errors occurred on the record at trial, resulting in prejudice to the defendant and which requires reversal of the conviction or a reduction of the conviction. The People oppose the defendant's motion in all respects.

Pursuant to CPL §330.30(1), at any time after the rendition of a verdict of guilty and before the imposition of sentence, a defendant may move, inter alia, to set aside the verdict on "any ground appearing in the record, which if raised upon an appeal from a prospective judgment of conviction, would require a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court." Since the authority to set aside a verdict is limited to grounds which would require reversal or modification on appeal, only an error of law which has been properly preserved for appellate review may serve as a basis for setting aside the verdict. [See People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 61, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329; People v. Josey, 204 A.D.2d 571,612 N.Y.S.2d 170; People v. Amato, 238 A.D.2d 432,433, 656 N.Y.S.2d 360, appeal denied 90 N.Y.2d 937, 664 N.Y.S.2d 756, 687 N.E.2d 653; People v, Thomas, 8 A.D.3d 303, 777 N.Y.S.2d 673, Iv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 682, 784 N.Y.S.2d 9, 817 N.E.2d 827], A trial court is limited under CPL §330 to examining issues of law, whereas an appellate court may delve in matters of fact. [See People v. Carter, 63 N.Y.2d 530, 473 N.E.2d 6, 483 N.Y.S.2d 654 (1984); see also People v. Ponnapula, 229 A.D.2d 257, 655 N.Y.S.2d 750 (1^stDept., 1997)]. The court's inquiry is limited to determining the legality of a verdict. [See People v. Trimm, 252 A.D.2d 673, 675 N.Y.S.2d 241 (3^rd Dept, 1998)]. In deciding a CPL.§330 motion, every instance must be judged in favor of the People. [See People v. Floyd, 176 A.D.2d 554, 574 N.Y.S.2d 733 (1^st Dept, 1991), lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 827, 588 N.E.2d 105, 580 N.Y.S.2d 207, 580 N.Y.S.2d 214 (1992)]. In addition, a trial court has no power to set aside a jury verdict on its own weighing of the evidence. [See People v. Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695, 474 N.E.2d 1187, 485 N.Y.S.2d 519 1984)]. A trial court is only empowered to determine whether the evidence was legally sufficient to establish a defendant's guilt; it is the jury that is empowered to assess the evidence and determine the case based on its collective evaluation thereof. [See People v. Garcia, 237 A.D.2d 42, 668 N.Y.S.2d 5 (1^st Dept., 1988)].

The Court finds that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the alleged errors would require reversal or modification as a matter of law. The defendant's argument that the . Court erred in permitting the admission of evidence connecting him with the possession of a gun prior to the crimes charged in the indictment is directed to the Court's exercise of discretion which is fact based. By it very nature, this type of discretionary ruling can never be a basis for reversal as a matter of law. Moreover, the Court finds that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of all the crimes for which he stands convicted. The motion is, therefore, denied in its entirety.

This constitutes the opinion, decision and order of this Court.