People v. Baltazar

• Decision Date: 01 May 2020
• Docket Number: 458,KA 19–00205
• Citation: 121 N.Y.S.3d 716 (Mem),183 A.D.3d 1266
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James BALTAZAR, Defendant–appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

183 A.D.3d 1266

121 N.Y.S.3d 716 (Mem)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.James BALTAZAR, Defendant–appellant.

458

KA 19–00205

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

Entered: May 1, 2020

SESSLER LAW PC, GENESEO (STEVEN D. SESSLER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

GREGORY J. MCCAFFREY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (JOSHUA J. TONRA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree ( Penal Law § 120.05[3] ), defendant contends that the conviction is based on legally insufficient evidence. We reject that contention. The People were required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted "[w]ith intent to prevent a peace officer ... from performing a lawful duty" (id. ). Here, a correction officer testified that he was returning defendant to his cell when defendant head-butted him. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 [1983] ), we conclude that there is

" ‘a 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. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ; see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ).

Contrary to defendant's further contention, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d at 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).