Opinion
2012-11-9
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Yusuf HASSEM, also known as Yusuf A. Hassem, also known as Louis L. Reed, also known as Louis Reed, also known as Yusef Hassem, also known as Ante L. Davis, Defendant–Appellant.
Bridget L. Field, Rochester, for Defendant–Appellant. Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.
Bridget L. Field, Rochester, for Defendant–Appellant. Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of grand 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 in circumstantial 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 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 N.Y.2d 56, 62, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329,rearg.denied97 N.Y.2d 678, 738 N.Y.S.2d 292, 764 N.E.2d 396), a standard that was met here. Defendant was found guilty of stealing $2,000 in cash from a woman whom he had just met. The victim testified that she had the cash in her lap when defendant was present in her car and hugged her, and she realized almost immediately after he had left the car that it was gone. Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Even assuming, arguendo, that a different verdict would not have been unreasonable ( see Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d at 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we conclude that the jury did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded ( see People v. Johnson, 94 A.D.3d 1563, 1564, 942 N.Y.S.2d 753,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 962, 950 N.Y.S.2d 114, 973 N.E.2d 212;see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon our review, we “must give [g]reat deference ... [to the factfinder's] opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor” ( People v. Flagg, 59 A.D.3d 1003, 1004, 872 N.Y.S.2d 356,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 853, 881 N.Y.S.2d 665, 909 N.E.2d 588 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation ( see People v. Wright, 85 A.D.3d 1642, 1643, 924 N.Y.S.2d 701,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 863, 932 N.Y.S.2d 28, 956 N.E.2d 809) and, in any event, that contention is without merit. Contrary to defendant's contention, the prosecutor did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to defendant or vouch for a police officer who testified. “ ‘The prosecutor made no reference to defendant's failure to testify, and the comments he did make were not of such character as would naturally and reasonably be interpreted by the jury as adverse comment on defendant's failure to take the stand’ ” ( People v. Spagnualo, 5 A.D.3d 995, 997, 774 N.Y.S.2d 223,lv. denied2 N.Y.3d 807, 781 N.Y.S.2d 306, 814 N.E.2d 478, quoting People v. Burke, 72 N.Y.2d 833, 836, 530 N.Y.S.2d 543, 526 N.E.2d 34,rearg. denied72 N.Y.2d 953, 533 N.Y.S.2d 60, 529 N.E.2d 428). Moreover, the prosecutor's comment that the officer investigated the case “rather well” was “a fair response to the summation of defense counsel, who had attacked the credibility [of the officer]” ( People v. West, 4 A.D.3d 791, 792, 772 N.Y.S.2d 166).
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe in light of defendant's extensive criminal history involving similar crimes.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.