| People v Correa |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07235 [88 AD3d 810] |
| October 11, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Daniel A. Correa, Appellant. |
—[*1] Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.),rendered March 31, 2009, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession ofa weapon in the second degree (two counts), and tampering with physical evidence, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (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, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946[2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here,we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the County Court should have instructedthe jury that a certain prosecution witness was an accomplice as a matter of law. " '[I]f theundisputed evidence establishes that a witness is an accomplice, the jury must be so instructedbut, if different inferences may reasonably be drawn from the proof regarding complicity. . . the question should be left to the jury for its determination' " (People vSweet, 78 NY2d 263, 266 [1991], quoting People v Basch, 36 NY2d 154, 157[1975]). Here, since the evidence in this regard was susceptible of more than one interpretation,the County Court properly instructed the jury to determine whether the witness was anaccomplice (see People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 147 [2001]; People v Cardona, 17 AD3d 692,693 [2005]; People v Cirigliano, 15AD3d 672, 673 [2005]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson,Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.