| People v Hernandez |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09685 [79 AD3d 1683] |
| December 30, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent v DannyHernandez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Scott D. McNamara, District Attorney, Utica (Steven G. Cox of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.), renderedFebruary 4, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in thesecond degree (three counts) and robbery in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict ofthree counts of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1], [3]) and one count ofrobbery in the first degree (§ 160.15 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review hiscontention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of robbery in the firstdegree (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). We reject defendant's furthercontention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of three counts ofmurder in the second degree. "It is well settled that, even in circumstantial evidence cases, thestandard for appellate review of legal sufficiency issues is 'whether any valid line of reasoningand permissible inferences could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the[factfinder] on the basis of the evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People'" (People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 62 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]; see People v Pichardo, 34 AD3d1223, 1224 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 926 [2007]) and, here, we conclude that theevidence at trial could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury (see People v Daniels, 75 AD3d1169, 1170 [2010]; Pichardo, 34 AD3d at 1224; see generally People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of thecrimes as charged to the jury (see Peoplev Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's contention that the verdictis against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).
We further conclude that County Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting in evidencecertain autopsy photographs and photographs of the crime scene (see generally People vPobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 369-370 [1973], rearg denied 33 NY2d 657 [1973], certdenied 416 US 905 [1974]). The autopsy photographs were relevant to illustrate andcorroborate the testimony of the pathologist with respect to the victim's injuries and the cause ofdeath (see id. at 370; see Peoplev Simon, 71 AD3d 1574, 1575-1576 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 757 [2010],reconsideration denied 15 NY3d 856 [2010]; People v Hayes, 71 AD3d 1477 [2010], lv denied 15 [*2]NY3d 751 [2010]), and the photographs of the crime scene wererelevant to demonstrate defendant's intent and to corroborate the statements that defendant madeto a witness concerning the commission of the crime (see Simon, 71 AD3d at1575-1576; People v Camacho, 70AD3d 1393 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 886 [2010]; People v McCullough,278 AD2d 915, 916 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 803 [2001]). Present—Smith, J.P.,Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.