Court Opinion

ID: 5790934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 18:09:21.227491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:15.773292
License: Public Domain

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility -to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). According such deference here, we find that the descrepancies and inconsistencies in the police officers’ testimony were not of such magnitude as to render their testimony incredible. Thus, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.