| People v Hassem |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07539 [100 AD3d 1460] |
| November 9, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v YusufHassem, Also Known as Yusuf A. Hassem, Also Known as Louis L. Reed, Also Known as LouisReed, Also Known as Yusef Hassem, Also Known as Ante L. Davis,Appellant. |
—[*1] Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), renderedMarch 17, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of grand larceny in thefourth degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial ofgrand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [1]). We reject defendant'scontention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. "[E]ven incircumstantial evidence cases, the standard for appellate review of legal sufficiency issues is'whether any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead a rational person to theconclusion reached by the [factfinder] on the basis of the evidence at trial, viewed in the lightmost favorable to the People' " (People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 62 [2001], reargdenied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]), a standard that was met here. Defendant was found guilty ofstealing $2,000 in cash from a woman whom he had just met. The victim testified that she hadthe cash in her lap when defendant was present in her car and hugged her, and she realizedalmost immediately after he had left the car that it was gone. Viewing the evidence in light of theelements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we rejectdefendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (seegenerally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Even assuming, arguendo, that adifferent verdict would not have been unreasonable (see Danielson, 9 NY3d at 348), weconclude that the jury did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see People v Johnson, 94 AD3d1563, 1564 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 962 [2012]; see generally Bleakley,69 NY2d at 495). Upon our review, we "must give [g]reat deference . . . [to thefactfinder's] opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor" (People v Flagg, 59 AD3d 1003,1004 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 853 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied a fair trial byprosecutorial misconduct on summation (see People v Wright, 85 AD3d 1642, 1643 [2011], lv denied[*2]17 NY3d 863 [2011]) and, in any event, that contentionis without merit. Contrary to defendant's contention, the prosecutor did not impermissibly shiftthe burden of proof to defendant or vouch for a police officer who testified. " 'The prosecutormade no reference to defendant's failure to testify, and the comments he did make were not ofsuch character as would naturally and reasonably be interpreted by the jury as adverse commenton defendant's failure to take the stand' " (People v Spagnualo, 5 AD3d 995, 997 [2004], lv denied 2NY3d 807 [2004], quoting People v Burke, 72 NY2d 833, 836 [1988], reargdenied 72 NY2d 953 [1988]). Moreover, the prosecutor's comment that the officerinvestigated the case "rather well" was "a fair response to the summation of defense counsel, whohad attacked the credibility [of the officer]" (People v West, 4 AD3d 791, 792 [2004]).
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe in light of defendant's extensive criminalhistory involving similar crimes. Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Lindley andWhalen, JJ.