People v. Torres
| Decision Date | 13 January 1992 |
| Citation | 179 A.D.2d 696,578 N.Y.S.2d 262 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Esteban TORRES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Steven J. Kosstrin, Hempstead, for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Shulamit Rosenblum, and Barbara Thomashower, of counsel), for respondent.
Before KUNZEMAN, J.P., and EIBER, MILLER and RITTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered June 27, 1989, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was involved in an operation that sold crack-cocaine from an apartment located at 349 Linden Street in Brooklyn. The victim, whom the defendant was hired to kill by the "boss of the crackhouse", was interfering with the drug operation by, inter alia, "hassling" the operation's customers. On the evening of April 30, 1987, the defendant took his victim to the second floor of the crackhouse and shot him twice. Two witnesses testified at trial that they saw the defendant lead the victim into the crackhouse just before they heard gunshots. Additionally, one of these witnesses testified that the defendant admitted to him that he fired the fatal shots.
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. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15[5]. Any minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the People's witnesses did not render their testimony incredible as a matter of law (see, People v. Colon, 161 A.D.2d 782, 556 N.Y.S.2d 125; People v. Gibbs, 157 A.D.2d 799, 550 N.Y.S.2d 400).
We find the defendant's claim that his arrest photograph was improperly admitted into evidence to be without merit. The photograph was properly admitted since it established that the defendant had shaved his face and head at some point after the incident. This information tended to show that the defendant was attempting to change his appearance in order to avoid apprehension which is relevant on the material issue of the defendant's consciousness of guilt (see, People v. Kornegay, 164 A.D.2d 868, 559 N.Y.S.2d 552; People v. Mercado, 156 A.D.2d 720, 549 N.Y.S.2d 175).
The defendant claims that he was entitled to an adverse inference charge due to the prosecution's inability to produce certain audiotapes. We disagree. The court denied the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Collins
...on summation. Under those circumstances, we conclude that Supreme Court was not obligated to impose a sanction (see, People v. Torres, 179 A.D.2d 696, 697, 578 N.Y.S.2d 262, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 1008, 584 N.Y.S.2d 463, 594 N.E.2d 957; People v. Kaminski, 156 A.D.2d 471, 472, 548 N.Y.S.2d 75......
-
People v. Russo
...709; People v. Faccio, 33 A.D.3d 1041, 1042, 822 N.Y.S.2d 329; People v. Bailey, 14 A.D.3d 362, 363, 789 N.Y.S.2d 110; People v. Torres, 179 A.D.2d 696, 696-697, 578 N.Y.S.2d 262), inasmuch as the probative value of the evidence outweighed any unfair prejudice ( see People v. Caban, 14 N.Y.......
-
People v. McFadden
...of the recordings of the radio transmissions between the officers (see Smith , 235 A.D.2d at 641, 652 N.Y.S.2d 343 ; People v. Torres , 179 A.D.2d 696, 697, 578 N.Y.S.2d 262 [2d Dept. 1992], lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1008, 584 N.Y.S.2d 463, 594 N.E.2d 957 [1992] ; People v. Hyde , 172 A.D.2d 305,......
-
People v. Bramble
...the defendant was conscious of his own guilt ( see People v. Reade, 13 N.Y.2d 42, 46, 241 N.Y.S.2d 829, 191 N.E.2d 891; People v. Torres, 179 A.D.2d 696, 696-697, 578 N.Y.S.2d 262). Contrary to the defendant's contention, there was a sufficient factual predicate to support a jury instructio......