| People v Francois |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05089 [85 AD3d 813] |
| June 7, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v LewisFrancois, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy,and Adam Koelsch of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.),rendered June 4, 2008, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession ofa weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged with having shot and killed the victim, Cory Campbell, in analtercation that occurred near a bar on the night of October 2, 2006. The defendant was chargedwith murder in the second degree under Penal Law § 125.25 (1), which provides that a"person is guilty of murder in the second degree when: 1. With intent to cause the death ofanother person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person." The defendant was alsocharged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law§ 265.03 (2), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
The People adduced legally sufficient proof of the defendant's guilt of the count of murder inthe second degree. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence was legally sufficient toshow that he acted with the intent to kill the intended victim, rather than with recklessness orwith depraved indifference to human life (see Penal Law § 15.05 [1]; People v Thompson, 75 AD3d760, 763 [2010]; People v Jones, 309 AD2d 819, 820 [2003]; People vRobertson, 302 AD2d 956, 956-957 [2003]; People v Hogan, 219 AD2d 672, 672[1995]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weightof the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946[2004]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not againstthe weight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The verdict was not repugnant. In light of the elements of the crimes of murder in the seconddegree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree as charged to the jury, "thedefendant's acquittal of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree did not necessarilynegate [*2]the intent element" of the charge of murder in thesecond degree (People v Banks, 239 AD2d 354, 354 [1997]; see People vHaymes, 34 NY2d 639, 640 [1974], cert denied 419 US 1003 [1974]; People vMiles, 198 AD2d 445, 445-446 [1993]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Sgroi andMiller, JJ., concur.