Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Bunn, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1994-12-19
Citations: 210 A.D.2d 421
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Bunn, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 210
Pages: 421–422

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Bunn, Appellant.
[620 NYS2d 413]

Opinion:
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered December 16, 1992, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of murder in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. One day after the shooting, the eyewitness identified the defendant in a corporeal lineup as the individual who had approached the driver's side of the vehicle in which the witness was seated and shot the driver in what appeared to be a carjacking. The eyewitness also identified the defendant in court as the shooter.
The alleged inconsistencies in the eyewitness's testimony were fully explored before the jury. 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 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 (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.