People v. Moore

• Decision Date: 11 May 2006
• Docket Number: 14612.
• Citation: 814 N.Y.S.2d 405,2006 NY Slip Op 03645,29 A.D.3d 1077
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MARLON C. MOORE, Also Known as "NASEEM," Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

29 A.D.3d 1077

814 N.Y.S.2d 405

2006 NY Slip Op 03645

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v.MARLON C. MOORE, Also Known as "NASEEM,"Appellant.

14612.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department.

May 11, 2006.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County(Pulver, Jr., J.), rendered August 15, 2001, upon a verdict convicting defendant of two counts of the crime of assault in the second degree.

Cardona, P.J.

On November 22, 2000, apparently due to a territorial dispute over illegal drug sales, an individual identified as defendant was observed using a knife to stab Darrell Carter and Xavier Pilataxi, causing each to sustain severe lacerations.Defendant was thereafter charged in a multicount indictment with, among other things, several counts of assault in the second degree.^*After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of assault in the second degree pertaining to the stabbings and he was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of seven years, with three years of postrelease supervision.

Initially, defendant contends that his convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence because the People failed to establish defendant's presence at the crime scene.A verdict is supported by legally sufficient evidence when it is determined that "there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged"(People v Bleakley,69 NY2d 490, 495[1987][citation omitted];seePeople v Valderama,25 AD3d 819, 820[2006]).Significantly, in order to establish a prima facie case for assault in the second degree, the People must show that defendant, with the intent to cause physical injury to another person, did cause such injury to such person via a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument (seePenal Law § 120.05 [2];People v Amato,1 AD3d 713, 715[2003], lv denied1 NY3d 594[2004]).

Here, the evidence established a valid and permissible line of inferences permitting the jury to reasonably conclude that defendant committed the subject crimes of assault in the second degree.Specifically, two eyewitnesses identified defendant as the perpetrator of the stabbings.Joshawn Williams, a friend of Carter who accompanied him to the hospital, testified that he saw defendant pull Carter's arm and stab him, pulling the knife down through his skin.He then saw defendant cut Pilataxi on his arm and saw the knife fly through the air and strike him in the head.In the course of his testimony, Williams positively identified defendant as the individual who cut Pilataxi and Carter.In addition to Williams' testimony, Robert Gunney testified that he saw defendant stab both men.According the People the benefit of every favorable inference, the evidence, including proof establishing the extent of the victims' injuries, was legally sufficient to establish that defendant committed the crimes for which he was convicted (seePeople v Amato, supra at 715-716).

In addition, we are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.Although "a different verdict here would not have been unreasonable, the conflicting testimony raised credibility questions which were within the jury's province to resolve"(People v Beverly [Priest],5 AD3d 862, 865[2004], lvs denied2 NY3d 796, 804[2004]).For example, while it is true that Carter, the only victim of the stabbings who testified, refused to...