PEOPLE v. JAMISON

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Willie JAMISON, appellant.

Decided: April 29, 2008

ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and ARIEL E. BELEN, JJ. Kent V. Moston, Hempstead, N.Y. (Jeremy L. Goldberg and Tammy Feman of counsel), for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Andrea M. DiGregorio and Margaret E. Mainusch of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Berkowitz, J.), rendered June 29, 2004, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, rape in the first degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, assault in the third degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions of sodomy in the first degree, rape in the first degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.   However, the defendant's argument is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];  People v. James, 35 A.D.3d 762, 825 N.Y.S.2d 776).   In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the factfinder, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644-645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902;  People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828).   Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5] ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

 Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding cross-examination of the complainant concerning her sexual history with her ex-boyfriend (see CPL 60.42;  People v. Crawford, 143 A.D.2d 141, 142, 531 N.Y.S.2d 598).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contentions either are without merit or do not require reversal.

Copied to clipboard