# People v. Brown

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · June 16, 1997 · 240 A.D.2d 587

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6015276

## Case

- **Full name:** The People of the State of New York v. Noel Brown, Also Known as Jonathan Francis
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** June 16, 1997
- **Citations:** 240 A.D.2d 587; 659 N.Y.S.2d 989; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6903
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6015276

## Opinion text

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered June 23, 1995, convicting him of attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that the evidence was not legally *588 sufficient to support his conviction for attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641 ; 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 was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, 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 defendant also failed to preserve his contention that the forensic expert’s testimony should not have been admitted because it was too uncertain (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Balls, supra, at 642 ). In any event, any error in allowing the testimony in question was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 ). Miller, J. P., Copertino, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6015276. Public record. Not legal advice.