Summary
finding that "[w]hile the testimony of eyewitnesses contained various inconsistencies, these discrepancies were before the triers of fact"
Summary of this case from Schouenborg v. Superintendent, Auburn Corr. FacilityOpinion
February 23, 1987
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Lamont, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that his motion for a severance, made on the eve of trial, was erroneously denied. The record reveals that the defendant and his codefendant entered a social club together, fired shotguns in unison at the complainant and were subsequently arrested together in another city. "Where proof against the defendants is supplied by the same evidence, only the most cogent reasons warrant a severance" (People v. Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75, 87, cert denied 416 U.S. 905). Since the evidence against the defendant and his codefendant in this case was virtually identical, we discern no error in the denial of the motion for separate trials (see, e.g., People v. Cruz, 66 N.Y.2d 61, cert granted ___ US ___, 106 S Ct 2888; Matter of Michael J., 117 A.D.2d 602). Likewise, the court's Sandoval ruling was the product of a careful balancing of the probative value of the defendant's prior convictions on the issue of credibility against their prejudicial effect (see, People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236) and did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282).
Similarly unavailing is the defendant's contention that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While the testimony of the eyewitnesses contained various inconsistencies, these discrepancies were before the triers of fact, and we find no basis for disturbing the jury's evaluation of the witnesses' credibility (see, e.g., People v. Irby, 115 A.D.2d 661; People v. Rosenfeld, 93 A.D.2d 872). Viewing the entire record in the light most favorable to the People (see, e.g., People v. Loughlin, 66 N.Y.2d 633), we conclude that there was sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence from which the jury could find the defendant guilty of attempted murder in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.