People v. Correa

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Citation: 88 A.D.3d 810,930 N.Y.S.2d 888,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07235
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Daniel A. CORREA, appellant.
• Decision Date: 11 October 2011

88 A.D.3d 810
930 N.Y.S.2d 888
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07235

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Daniel A. CORREA, appellant.

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

Oct. 11, 2011.

Janet A. Gandolfo, Sleepy Hollow, N.Y., for appellant.Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.

[88 A.D.3d 810] Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered March 31, 2009, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and tampering with physical evidence, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[88 A.D.3d 811] ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the County Court should have instructed the jury that a certain prosecution witness was an accomplice as a matter of law. “ ‘[I]f the undisputed evidence establishes that a witness is an accomplice, the jury must be so instructed but, if different inferences may reasonably be drawn from the proof regarding complicity ... the question should be left to the jury for its determination’ ” ( People v. Sweet, 78 N.Y.2d 263, 266, 573 N.Y.S.2d 438, 577 N.E.2d 1030, quoting People v. Basch, 36 N.Y.2d 154, 157, 365 N.Y.S.2d 836, 325 N.E.2d 156). Here, since the

[930 N.Y.S.2d 889]

evidence in this regard was susceptible of more than one interpretation, the County Court properly instructed the jury to determine whether the witness was an accomplice ( see People v. Besser, 96 N.Y.2d 136, 147, 726 N.Y.S.2d 48, 749 N.E.2d 727; People v. Cardona, 17 A.D.3d 692, 693, 793 N.Y.S.2d 542; People v. Cirigliano, 15 A.D.3d 672, 673, 791 N.Y.S.2d 584).

The defendant's remaining contentions are...