From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Beasley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 15, 1985
114 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

October 15, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we are required to do (see, e.g., People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied ___ US ___, 105 S Ct 327), we find that based on the victim's unfettered ability to observe defendant throughout the course of the robbery, which lasted approximately 6 to 8 minutes, and the subsequent photographic identification, the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, since "` any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt'" (People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, quoting from Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319). Although there were minor inconsistencies between the victim's description of her assailant and defendant's actual appearance at the time of arrest, we find that the evidence is sufficient in quality and quantity to justify the jury's finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116, 122).

Defendant's contention that the trial court's charge on identification was inadequate because it failed to provide the jury with detailed instructions to assist them in evaluating the accuracy of the sole complaining witness' identification of defendant as one of the perpetrators of the crime (People v Daniels, 88 A.D.2d 392), was not preserved for appellate review as no timely exception was made (see, CPL 470.05; People v Contes, supra). Furthermore, although desirable, a detailed charge on the issue of identification is not required as a matter of law (see, People v Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279; People v Smith, 100 A.D.2d 857). "A Judge who gives a general instruction on weighing witnesses' credibility and who states that identification must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt has made an accurate statement of the law" (People v Whalen, supra, at p 279). We have examined defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. O'Connor, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Beasley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 15, 1985
114 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

People v. Beasley

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SAMANTHA BEASLEY…

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

Date published: Oct 15, 1985

Citations

114 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

The defendant was aware of the recent robbery and offered to retrieve the stolen gold chain in order to avoid…

People v. Shaw

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the…