PEOPLE v. VEGA (2006)

Court of Appeals of New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charlie VEGA, Appellant.

Decided: November 21, 2006

Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Robert S. Dean of counsel), for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City (Susan Gliner of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Based on the testimony of detectives who observed defendant engage in narcotics transactions, he was convicted of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The Appellate Division rejected defendant's argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, concluding that there was “no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility, including its resolution of inconsistencies in the detectives' testimony (see People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94 [68 N.E. 112] [1903] )” (25 A.D.3d 382, 382, 806 N.Y.S.2d 869 [1st Dept.2006] ). The Appellate Division's citation to Gaimari does not indicate that the Court failed to apply the proper legal standard for analyzing defendant's challenge to the weight of the evidence supporting the conviction (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 645-646, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 [2006] ).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.

MEMORANDUM.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH and PIGOTT concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network