Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the defendant's conviction for rape in the third degree. The court held that the legal-sufficiency challenge was unpreserved, found the evidence legally sufficient in any event, and determined that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant preserved for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence.
- Whether, notwithstanding the preservation issue, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Whether the verdict convicting the defendant of rape in the third degree was against the weight of the evidence.
Holdings
- The defendant's legal-sufficiency challenge was unpreserved because his generalized trial motions to dismiss did not specifically identify the deficiencies later asserted on appeal.
- Even if preserved, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The verdict convicting the defendant of rape in the third degree was not against the weight of the evidence.
Factual background
A jury found Artur Marcinkowski guilty of rape in the third degree. The jury acquitted him of rape in the first degree and certain other crimes. The Appellate Division reviewed the trial record and concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient and that the verdict convicting him of rape in the third degree was not against the weight of the evidence.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Marcinkowski of rape in the third degree, and the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered judgment and imposed sentence on December 13, 2021. He appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division held that the legal-sufficiency claim was unpreserved and, alternatively, rejected it on the merits; it also held that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.