From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dudley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 2008
859 N.Y.S.2d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2003-08858.

June 24, 2008.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered September 30, 2003, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Douglas J. Martino, Mount Vernon, N.Y., for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Lois Cullen Valerio, Richard Longworth Hecht, and Anthony J. Servino of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Skelos, J.P., Miller, Carni and Chambers, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to convict him of depraved indifference murder ( see CPL 470.05; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20; People v Solis, 43 AD3d 1190) and we decline to reach that issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction ( see People v Solis, 43 AD3d at 1191; People v Lamport, 38 AD3d 682; see generally CPL 470.15 [a]).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15), we are constrained to weigh the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged without objection by the defendant ( see People v Johnson, 10 NY3d 875; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349; People v Cooper, 88 NY2d 1056, 1058; People v Noble, 86 NY2d 814, 815; People v Solis, 43 AD3d at 1191; People v Lampon, 38 AD3d at 683). Having done so, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d at 349; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).

The defendant's challenge to the County Court's Sandoval ruling ( see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371) is without merit. The County Court properly weighed the probative value of the defendant's prior conviction on the issue of his credibility against the possible prejudice to the defendant, and reached an appropriate compromise ruling ( see People v Grier, 47 AD3d 729; People v Allan, 41 AD3d 727; People v Caldwell, 23 AD3d 576).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review.


Summaries of

People v. Dudley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 2008
859 N.Y.S.2d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

People v. Dudley

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PAUL DUDLEY, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 24, 2008

Citations

859 N.Y.S.2d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
859 N.Y.S.2d 376
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 5941

Citing Cases

People v. Rogers

70.05[2] ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v.…

People v. Mathis

The defendant's challenge to the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling ( see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371) is…