From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 2, 1993
199 A.D.2d 6 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

December 2, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.).


Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), we find that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict. Moreover, upon an independent review of the facts, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). The issues raised by defendant concerning the credibility of the undercover officer and other police witnesses, including the conflicts between Grand Jury and trial testimony as to whether defendant was arrested at a different time than the codefendants, were properly placed before the jury, and we find no reason on the record before us to disturb its determination. The prosecutor's summation did not deny defendant a fair trial, but was a fair response to a defense summation that attacked the credibility of the People's witnesses (see, People v Rodriguez, 159 A.D.2d 356, 357, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 795). The robing room conference at which counsel stated her exceptions to the charge was an ancillary proceeding at which only legal argument was made, and thus defendant's absence therefrom did not affect his ability to defend and was not a violation of his right to be present at all material steps of the trial (People v Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 472). Moreover, defendant's counsel expressly declined the opportunity extended by the court to consult with defendant. Defendant's claim that the court's charge changed the theory of the prosecution is unpreserved and we decline to reach it. If we were to reach it, we would find that inasmuch as the court's possible misstatement was fleeting and the remainder of the charge was in accordance with the People's theory, the error was harmless.

We have considered the other contentions of defendant, and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 2, 1993
199 A.D.2d 6 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ARTHUR JONES, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 2, 1993

Citations

199 A.D.2d 6 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
604 N.Y.S.2d 105

Citing Cases

People v. Dickerson

In any event, the conference in the robing room did not constitute a Sandoval hearing. The trial court had…

People v. Breland

The defendant was not deprived of his right to be present at a material stage of the trial when the court…