From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Oquendo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 1991
177 A.D.2d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

November 12, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bourgeois, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier-of-fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). The determination of the trier-of-fact should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Oquendo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 1991
177 A.D.2d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Oquendo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EUSEBIO OQUENDO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 12, 1991

Citations

177 A.D.2d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
576 N.Y.S.2d 311

Citing Cases

Nesbitt v. Williams

A case that includes any direct evidence, or a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence, "does not…