From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 1995
216 A.D.2d 329 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 5, 1995

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (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. The defendant contends that the People's witnesses should not have been believed by the jury. However, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined 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). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).

The defendant additionally failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether the court improperly allowed testimony concerning the contents of certain police radio transmissions in which he was described (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the court properly permitted such testimony to explain why the arresting officer arrested the defendant and to avoid speculation by the jury (see, People v. Burrus, 182 A.D.2d 634; People v. Love, 92 A.D.2d 551, 553).

The People correctly concede that the evidence that the defendant possessed money at the time of his arrest, other than the pre-recorded purchase money, should not have been admitted since he was charged with a single sale of narcotics (see, People v. Edwards, 199 A.D.2d 334). This error, however, was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt. There is no significant probability that but for this error the defendant would have been acquitted (see, People v Edwards, supra; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 1995
216 A.D.2d 329 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMAL MARTIN, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 5, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 329 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
627 N.Y.S.2d 774

Citing Cases

People v. Lewis

We also agree with the defendant that the court erred in allowing the People to introduce $190 recovered from…

People v. Baez

The Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence testimony of the description of the perpetrator contained…