People v. Rossey
| Decision Date | 13 February 1997 |
| Citation | 678 N.E.2d 473,655 N.Y.S.2d 861,89 N.Y.2d 970 |
| Parties | , 678 N.E.2d 473 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Jose ROSSEY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to that Court for consideration of the facts and other issues raised but not considered on the appeal to that Court.
Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[1] ) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees (Penal Law § 265.02[4]; § 265.03). The Appellate Division reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment, concluding that the evidence "when viewed in the light most favorable to the People, fails to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted in concert with Ocasio to intentionally cause Guerra's death" (222 A.D.2d 710, 712, 635 N.Y.S.2d 970). The Court further noted that the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt or to a moral certainty that the defendant shared the intent to kill Guerra and that the evidence does not exclude the " 'fair inference' " that the defendant did not share in Ocasio's intention to kill Guerra (People v. Rossey, supra, at 711, 635 N.Y.S.2d 970). This standard was erroneous.
Generally, including a circumstantial evidence case, "the standard of [appellate] review in determining whether the evidence before the jury was legally sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, could lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that the elements of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v. Cabey, 85 N.Y.2d 417, 420, 626 N.Y.S.2d 20, 649 N.E.2d 1164; see also, People v. Norman, 85 N.Y.2d 609, 620, 627 N.Y.S.2d 302, 650 N.E.2d 1303). Although the evidence that defendant shared Ocasio's intention to kill was circumstantial, the test for appellate review on the issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence is the same for both direct and circumstantial evidence (People v. Cabey, supra, at 421, 626 N.Y.S.2d 20, 649 N.E.2d 1164).
Viewed in a light most favorable to the People, the evidence indicated that the defendant drove the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quartararo v. Hanslmaier
...review of the sufficiency of the evidence is the same for both direct and circumstantial evidence. People v. Rossey, 89 N.Y.2d 970, 971-72, 655 N.Y.S.2d 861, 862, 678 N.E.2d 473 (1997). In this case, the trial judge instructed the jury that because only circumstantial evidence was presented......
-
People v. Harris
...1303 [1995]; People v. Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925, 926, 620 N.Y.S.2d 811, 644 N.E.2d 1367 [1994]; see also People v. Rossey, 89 N.Y.2d 970, 971–972, 655 N.Y.S.2d 861, 678 N.E.2d 473 [1997]; People v. Wong, 81 N.Y.2d at 608, 601 N.Y.S.2d 440, 619 N.E.2d 377). Thus, it is settled that “ ‘ the ju......
-
People v. McDonald
...643, 762 N.E.2d 329 [2001], rearg denied 97 N.Y.2d 678, 738 N.Y.S.2d 292, 764 N.E.2d 396 [2001] ; see People v. Rossey, 89 N.Y.2d 970, 971–972, 655 N.Y.S.2d 861, 678 N.E.2d 473 [1997] ; People v. Cabey, 85 N.Y.2d 417, 420–421, 626 N.Y.S.2d 20, 649 N.E.2d 1164 [1995] ). As relevant here, a p......
-
People v. Colon
...139 [3d Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 853, 872 N.Y.S.2d 76, 900 N.E.2d 559 [2008] ; see generally People v. Rossey , 89 N.Y.2d 970, 972, 655 N.Y.S.2d 861, 678 N.E.2d 473 [1997] ). We therefore reject defendant's contention that the evidence of intent is legally insufficient to support th......