From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Louis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2002
294 A.D.2d 377 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Summary

explaining that "[t]he fact that two of the People's witnesses had unsavory and criminal backgrounds, and one testified pursuant to a cooperation agreement, does not render their respective testimony incredible as a matter of law."

Summary of this case from Butts v. Artuz

Opinion

1999-06088

Submitted April 9, 2002.

May 8, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered June 15, 1999, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Michelle Mogal of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, and Anastasia Spanakos of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, McGINITY, ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19-20; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 250). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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. The fact that two of the People's witnesses had unsavory and criminal backgrounds, and one testified pursuant to a cooperation agreement, does not render their respective testimony incredible as a matter of law (see People v. Toro, 272 A.D.2d 351; People v. McDaniel, 233 A.D.2d 343; People v. Ellis, 188 A.D.2d 1043). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).

The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review and/or without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, McGINITY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Louis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2002
294 A.D.2d 377 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

explaining that "[t]he fact that two of the People's witnesses had unsavory and criminal backgrounds, and one testified pursuant to a cooperation agreement, does not render their respective testimony incredible as a matter of law."

Summary of this case from Butts v. Artuz
Case details for

People v. Louis

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. FRANCOIS-PIERRE LOUIS, a/k/a DARREL…

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

Date published: May 8, 2002

Citations

294 A.D.2d 377 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
741 N.Y.S.2d 706

Citing Cases

Butts v. Artuz

The Appellate Division rejected these challenges, and affirmed Butts's conviction on May 6, 2002. People v.…

People v. Tankleff

A witness's "unsavory background" does not render his or her "testimony incredible as a matter of law" (…