AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL HULBERT, Appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The victim testified that the defendant inserted first his penis and then his finger into her vagina, repeated those acts in her anus and then compelled her to perform oral sex. The entire encounter lasted eight minutes. During most of that time the victim was face-to-face with her assailant, whom she identified as the defendant. The resolution of questions relating to the 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 N.Y. 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 A.D.2d 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).

Contrary to the defendant's argument, the trial court did not improvidently limit the defense counsel's cross-examination of certain witnesses. It is well settled that the nature and extent of cross-examination are matters subject to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v. Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, cert denied 396 U.S. 846; People v. Thomches, 172 A.D.2d 786). Since many of the areas on which the defense counsel wished to cross-examine the witnesses were, for the most part, only collateral to the trial and of limited relevance, it cannot be said that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in precluding extensive questioning with regard to those matters (see, People v. Boyajian, 148 A.D.2d 740).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. HULBERT
(May 18, 1992)