People v Laramore

State: New York

Court: New York Northern District Court

Docket No: 2003 NY Slip Op 23728

Case Date: 07/17/2003

Plaintiff: People

Defendant: Laramore

Preview:People v Laramore (2003 NYSlipOp 23728)

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, July 17, 2003
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Legal Aid Society, New York City (Andrew C. Fine and Amy Donner of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky and Adrienne Lloyd of counsel), for plaintiff.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, with respect to defendant's contention that the evidence does not support a finding of "intent to use unlawfully against another," it is well settled that intent may be inferred from the act itself, or "from the defendant's conduct or the surrounding circumstances" (People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
With respect to defendant's argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, it is noted that resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/NY/2/2003_23728.htm[4/21/2013 1:13:20 PM] People v Laramore (2003 NYSlipOp 23728)
presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon review of the record, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.05 [5]).
Finally, the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of "necessity" (Penal Law

Download 2003_23728.pdf