| People v Corse |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04611 [73 AD3d 1208] |
| May 25, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v EricCorse, Also Known as Erik Corse, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert A. Schwartz and Jason R.Richards of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Honoroff,J.), rendered June 30, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the thirddegree, criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree (two counts), attempted criminal sale of afirearm in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, hinderingprosecution in the third degree, and criminal facilitation in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branchof the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to an informant.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court properly denied, after a Massiah hearing (see Massiah vUnited States, 377 US 201 [1964]), that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion whichwas to suppress statements he made to an informant while in jail. The fact that the informant hada prior cooperation agreement with the People and had provided information in other cases didnot automatically make him an agent of the prosecution with regard to this case (see People vCardona, 41 NY2d 333 [1977]; People v Fernandez, 23 AD3d 317, 318 [2005];People v Tam, 260 AD2d 242 [1999]). The informant acted independently and on hisown initiative. The prosecution was a passive recipient of the information (see People vCardona, 41 NY2d at 335).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conductan independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied thatthe verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7NY3d 633 [2006]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the jury could reasonably find that thetestimony of certain witnesses was not incredible or unreliable.[*2]
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see Peoplev Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's contentions raised in his supplemental pro se brief and in point II (a) (2) ofhis main brief are unpreserved for appellate review, and his remaining contentions are withoutmerit. Rivera, J.P., Fisher, Florio and Austin, JJ., concur.