People v. Moore

• Decision Date: 19 November 2010
• Citation: 912 N.Y.S.2d 825,78 A.D.3d 1658
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Calvin MOORE, Defendant-Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

912 N.Y.S.2d 825

78 A.D.3d 1658

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Calvin MOORE, Defendant-Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.)

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

Nov. 19, 2010.

Christine M. Cook, Syracuse, for Defendant-Appellant.

Calvin Moore, Defendant-Appellant Pro Se.

William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Victoria M. White of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, SCONIERS, PINE, AND GORSKI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[1] ), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [former (2) ] ) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [former (4) ] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in admitting evidence that he was a drug dealer who had sold crack cocaine to both the victim and a key prosecution witness. We conclude that the evidence was properly admitted to establish the motive of defendant and his identity as the person who shot the victim, and that its probative value exceeded its prejudicial effect ( see People v. Cordova-Diaz, 55 A.D.3d 360, 361, 865 N.Y.S.2d 92, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 782, 879 N.Y.S.2d 59, 906 N.E.2d 1093; People v. James, 262 A.D.2d 500, 691 N.Y.S.2d 330; see generally People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 291-294, 61 N.E. 286). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the court should have given a limiting instruction with respect to the Molineux evidence ( see People v. Mosley, 55 A.D.3d 1371, 864 N.Y.S.2d 622, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 856, 872 N.Y.S.2d 79, 900 N.E.2d 562), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15[6][a] ).

We reject the further contention of defendant that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. The People presented evidence establishing every element of the crimes charged and defendant's commission thereof. The fact that no one saw defendant fire the shot that killed the victim does not render the evidence legally insufficient, inasmuch as there was ample circumstantial evidence establishing defendant's identity as the shooter. "It is well settled that, even in circumstantial evidence cases, the standard for appellate review of legal sufficiency issues is 'whether any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the fact finder on the basis of the evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People' "( People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 62, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329, rearg. denied 97 N.Y.2d 678, 738 N.Y.S.2d 292, 764 N.E.2d 396). Indeed, the challenge by defendant to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is based primarily on his contention that the testimony of the main prosecution witness was incredible as a matter of law, and we reject that contention. Defendant is correct that the witness in question initially lied to the police concerning her knowledge of the murder and did not fully disclose her knowledge thereof until she was negotiating a plea deal on unrelated charges almost two years later. Nevertheless, we note that...