People v. Hatcher

Dec 9, 2008
Versions:57 A.D.3d 694
56 A.D.2d 798
868 N.Y.S.2d 708
868 N.Y.2d 537

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenges to the court‘s charge to the jury, as he did not object to the charge (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Williams, 38 AD3d 925, 926 [2007]; People v Edwards, 292 AD2d 393, 394 [2002]). In any event, the court‘s charge, when read as a whole, fairly instructed the jury on the principles of law to be applied to the case (see People v Ferraro, 49 AD3d 550, 551 [2008]).

The defendant‘s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is also unpreserved for appellate review, as he made only a general motion to dismiss the indictment and did not elaborate with specific facts or grounds the basis for dismissal (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]). Spolzino, J.P, Covello, Angiolillo and Chambers, JJ., concur.