People v. Morris

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: SULLIVAN
• Citation: People v. Morris, 644 N.Y.S.2d 901, 229 A.D.2d 451 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
• Decision Date: 08 July 1996
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Thomas MORRIS, Appellant.

Page 901

644 N.Y.S.2d 901

229 A.D.2d 451

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Thomas MORRIS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division Second Department.

July 8, 1996.

Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Mark W. Zeno, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Nancy F. Talcott, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered April 11, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on the evidence presented at the trial, the jury could reasonably infer that the defendant either shot the victim or shared in the intention of the codefendant Larry Laraque to do so (see, People v. Laraque, 225 A.D.2d 562, 639 N.Y.S.2d 724; see also, People v. Cabey, 85 N.Y.2d 417, 626 N.Y.S.2d 20, 649 N.E.2d 1164; People v. Whatley, 69 N.Y.2d 784, 513 N.Y.S.2d 110, 505 N.E.2d 620; People v. Rodriguez, 221 A.D.2d 381, 633 N.Y.S.2d 506; People v. Crumwell, 199 A.D.2d 406, 605 N.Y.S.2d 321; People v. Jolly, 193 A.D.2d 816, 598 N.Y.S.2d 285).

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5] ). Although there were inconsistencies in the testimony of the People's witnesses, the inconsistencies are clearly insufficient to warrant reversal of a conviction based on the jury finding...