Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. N'Gina CAIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered September 26, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the first degree and two counts of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 6 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant did not preserve her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility (see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). The accomplice's testimony was fully corroborated (see CPL 60.22[1] ) by proof that was not limited to consciousness-of-guilt evidence, but also included a chain of circumstantial evidence concerning defendant's behavior during the crime, as well as her admissions to a police officer.
All of defendant's Confrontation Clause claims are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal. Although, as the People concede, the codefendants' plea allocutions were inadmissible (see Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 [2004] ), we find that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The inadmissible evidence did not connect defendant with the crime, but only related to uncontested matters.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
Defendant's remaining arguments, including all of her remaining constitutional claims are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims we would find them without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: February 27, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)