Case ID: ad2d_254/html/0503-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dewitt McGriff, Appellant.
    [681 NYS2d 35]
   Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered October 8, 1997, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the People failed to prove that he displayed a gun is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish that the defendant displayed a gun to the complainant. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). 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). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

We also reject the defendant’s contention that the trial court’s Allen charge (see, Allen v United States, 164 US 492) was coercive and unbalanced. A review of the charge as a whole reveals that it was essentially neutral, directed at the jurors in general, and did not coerce them to reach a verdict or achieve a particular result (see, People v Ford, 78 NY2d 878; People v Pagan, 45 NY2d 725; People v Clarke, 188 AD2d 541).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.