From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Toro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 2000
272 A.D.2d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted March 27, 2000.

May 3, 2000.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered July 7, 1997, convicting him of murder in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Cheryl Charles-Duval, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Michael Gore, and Solomon Neubort of counsel), for respondent.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that judgment is affirmed.

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. A witness's previous criminal convictions, admitted drug addiction, and/or alcoholism does not render the witness inherently incredible (see, People v. Santiago, 228 A.D.2d 706; People v. Butler, 221 A.D.2d 458; People v. Beard, 197 A.D.2d 582; People v. Walcott, 171 A.D.2d 767). The existence of minor inconsistencies in the witness's testimony regarding tangential matters does not render the witness's testimony incredible as a matter of law (see, People v. Butler, supra; People v. Walker, 215 A.D.2d 607). Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Santiago, supra; People v. Mathews, 173 A.D.2d 565). The defendant fully explored before the jury the alleged infirmities in the People's case. 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).

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

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

BRACKEN, J.P., SULLIVAN, ALTMAN and KRAUSMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Toro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 2000
272 A.D.2d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Toro

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. JOSE RAMON TORO, appellant. (Ind. No…

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

Date published: May 3, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
707 N.Y.S.2d 876

Citing Cases

People v. Ward

Defendant failed to demonstrate that a continuance would produce evidence that would be material and…

People v. Torres

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we…