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. Rasheed ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment of conviction (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered October 21, 2016, affirmed.
The verdict convicting defendant of driving while impaired (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[1]) was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, including its rejection of defendant's version of events. The credited police testimony established that after being stopped for driving the wrong way down a one-way street at approximately 5:20 a.m., defendant exhibited visible signs of impairment by alcohol, including bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, an odor of alcohol on his breath and he was unsteady on his feet (see People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 426-428 [1979], appeal dismissed 446 US 901 [1980]). The discrepancies and inconsistencies in the police officers' testimony were fully explored by defense counsel on cross-examination and we find no basis to disturb the court's resolution of the issues (see People v Jones, 79 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 954 [2011]). The trial distilled to a credibility contest between the police witnesses, on the one hand, and defendant, on the other, and the trial court was in a far superior position to gauge the credibility of the witnesses (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]). Thus, while an acquittal would not have been unreasonable, the trial court was justified in finding defendant guilty (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d at 348).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Per Curiam.
I concur
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.
Docket No: 570806 /16
Decided: October 05, 2020
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, 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)