People v. Arhin

• Decision Date: 25 October 2018
• Docket Number: 108533
• Citation: 85 N.Y.S.3d 631,165 A.D.3d 1487
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roger ARHIN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

165 A.D.3d 1487
85 N.Y.S.3d 631

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Roger ARHIN, Appellant.

108533

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: September 6, 2018
Decided and Entered: October 25, 2018

85 N.Y.S.3d 632

Dominic J. Cornelius, Public Defender, Hudson (Jessica Howser of counsel), for appellant.

Paul Czajka, District Attorney, Hudson (Trevor O. Flike of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Aarons, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.), rendered May 18, 2016, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of attempted identity theft in the first degree.

On September 2, 2014, defendant went to a UPS facility, presented himself as the victim and picked up a package. On September 4, 2014, defendant returned to the UPS facility to pick up other packages and, even though the packages were supposed to be held at the UPS facility, one was erroneously delivered to the victim's residence. Defendant was charged by indictment with identity theft in the first degree in connection with the September 2, 2014 incident and attempted identity theft in the first degree in connection with the September 4, 2014 incident. Following a jury trial, defendant was acquitted of identity theft in the first degree but convicted of attempted identity theft in the first degree. At sentencing, defendant orally moved under CPL article 330 to set aside the verdict as repugnant. County Court denied the motion and sentenced defendant to a prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.

Defendant contends that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence because the People did not establish that he assumed the identity of another person (see Penal Law § 190.80 ). "A verdict is legally insufficient when, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt" ( People v. Byrd, 152 A.D.3d 984, 986, 59 N.Y.S.3d 539 [2017] [internal quotation marks, brackets and

85 N.Y.S.3d 633

citations omitted]; see People v. Anatriello, 161 A.D.3d 1383, 1384–1385, 77 N.Y.S.3d 581 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1144, 83 N.Y.S.3d 426, 108 N.E.3d 500 [2018] ). As to the weight of the evidence, because a contrary result would not have been unreasonable, our task is to "weigh conflicting testimony, review any rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and evaluate the strength of such conclusions" ( People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ; see People v. McCauley, 162 A.D.3d 1307, 1307–1308, 79 N.Y.S.3d 743 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 939, 84 N.Y.S.3d 865, 109 N.E.3d 1165 [2018] ; People v. Norman, 154 A.D.3d 1185, 1187, 63 N.Y.S.3d 136 [2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 986, 77 N.Y.S.3d 663, 102 N.E.3d 440 [2018] ).

At trial, the People adduced evidence that, on September 2, 2014, defendant went to a UPS facility, presented himself as the victim to a UPS employee, retrieved a package and signed for it in the victim's name. The UPS employee testified that defendant returned on September 4, 2014 and that he believed that defendant was the victim based upon what defendant had told him two days earlier. On that day,...