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, etc., respondent, v. Christopher Josey, appellant.
Argued-February 17, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), rendered October 14, 2009, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (six counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the circumstantial evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support his conviction of robbery in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484). While the People's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom (see People v. Lewis, 64 N.Y.2d 1111, 1112; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Balaz, 43 AD3d 949; People v. Urquidez, 5 AD3d 800, 800-801; People v. Hirsch, 280 A.D.2d 612, 613). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the trier of fact's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410, cert denied 542 U.S. 946; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The defendant's contentions relating to the chain of custody of a copy of a video recording that was admitted into evidence, and defense counsel's ability to compare that video recording to the original recording, are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
COVELLO, J.P., BELEN, HALL and COHEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2009-09966 (Ind.No. 2275 /06)
Decided: March 15, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)