People v. Murray

• Decision Date: 07 July 1986
• Citation: 122 A.D.2d 81,504 N.Y.S.2d 228
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Richard MURRAY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 228

504 N.Y.S.2d 228

122 A.D.2d 81

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Richard MURRAY, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

July 7, 1986.

John M. Lockwood, Huntington, for appellant.

William L. Murphy, Dist. Atty., Staten Island (Karen F. McGee and Louis J. Marchi of counsel), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and RUBIN, EIBER and SPATT, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sullivan, J.), rendered February 9, 1984, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The trial court, in its Sandoval ruling, properly permitted the prosecutor to impeach the defendant's credibility with a prior conviction for homicide. The underlying facts of the prior conviction indicate that it was an act of calculated violence, evincing the defendant's willingness to place his own self-interest ahead of the interests of society (see, People v. Zada, 82 A.D.2d 926, 440 N.Y.S.2d 672). Additionally, the record indicates that the trial court weighed the probative value of the evidence of the other crime with the risk of unfair prejudice, and properly concluded that the defendant suffered no undue prejudice (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 464 N.Y.S.2d 458, 451 N.E.2d 216; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413). The defendant's alibi defense was presented to the jury through another witness even though the defendant chose not to take the stand. The defendant's testimony was not essential to the fact-finding process (see, People v. Zada, supra ).

We also conclude, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932).

Two letters allegedly written by the defendant to the victim were properly admitted into evidence. Circumstantial evidence may satisfy the requirement that a writing be authenticated before it may be introduced (People v. Dunbar Contracting Co., 215 N.Y. 416, 109 N.E. 127). One of the letters referred to a prior telephone conversation between the victim and the defendant, and was therefore properly admitted. Additionally, both notes were signed...