| People v Erickson |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08137 [45 AD3d 902] |
| November 1, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory L.Erickson, Appellant. |
—[*1] David S. Hartnett, District Attorney, Cortland, for respondent.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County (Campbell, J.),rendered May 27, 2004, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of the crimes of criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), reckless endangerment in the firstdegree (two counts) and menacing in the second degree (two counts), and the violation ofharassment in the second degree (two counts).
Defendant lived in the same apartment complex as Matthew McNeil and Linda McNeil, andhe reportedly made an unprovoked threat toward Linda McNeil that she "better find a new placeto live or you're f...ing dead." Later that evening Matthew McNeil stated sarcastically "who'sdead now" to defendant while walking past the open door to his apartment with Linda McNeil.Defendant responded by moving into the hallway with a rifle, which he allegedly aimed at closerange at Linda McNeil's head and said, "You're dead." Matthew McNeil stepped betweendefendant and his wife while pushing the barrel of the rifle away. Defendant then pointed therifle at Matthew McNeil's chest before finally returning to his apartment.
Police were summoned, and they discovered that defendant possessed a semi-automatic rifle.Defendant acknowledged that he had possessed the weapon during the confrontation with theMcNeils and that it had been loaded at that time. Although defendant also made a series ofbizarre statements regarding his connections to, among others, former President Clinton and theCIA, he was nevertheless found competent to stand trial. Following a nonjury trial, he was [*2]convicted of two counts of each of the crimes of criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree andmenacing in the first degree, as well as two counts of the violation of harassment in the seconddegree. He was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 2
Defendant's argument that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence wasnot preserved by the general motion to dismiss made at trial (see People v Finger, 95NY2d 894, 895 [2000]; People vCarter, 40 AD3d 1310, 1311 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 873 [2007]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the testimony of thetwo victims together with the other trial evidence was adequate for a rational factfinder toconclude that defendant committed the crimes of which he was convicted (see People v Gibbs, 34 AD3d1120, 1121 [2006]). The thrust of defendant's argument is addressed to the weight of theevidence, where we view the evidence in a neutral light and weigh the relative probative force ofconflicting testimony as well as the strength of conflicting inferences (see People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). While there were some minor inconsistencies in thevictims' testimony, those inconsistencies did not undermine that testimony in any meaningfulrespect (see People v Gilliam, 36AD3d 1151, 1152 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 946 [2007]). According deference tothe determinations of the factfinder, who had the opportunity to view the witnesses as theytestified (see People v Haight, 19AD3d 714, 716 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 806 [2005]), we discern no reason in thisrecord to disregard those determinations, and we therefore conclude that the verdict is supportedby the weight of the evidence.
Under the circumstances of this case, we are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was anabuse of discretion or should otherwise be modified in the interest of justice (see People v Seavey, 9 AD3d 742,743 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 748 [2004]).
Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Kane,JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.