Summary
In Tucci, an employee indicated on an incident report that the condition of the floor was "wet" at the time of the accident but later testified that the floor was "dry."
Summary of this case from Drake v. Target StoresOpinion
2000-07901
Submitted March 1, 2002.
April 8, 2002.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered August 9, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree (three counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree, tampering with physical evidence, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (two counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts), burglary in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Steven A. Feldman, Hauppauge, N.Y., for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Lisa Drury, and Roni C. Piplani of counsel), for respondent.
Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the defendant's testimony regarding his state of mind at the time of the incident (see People v. Williams, 81 N.Y.2d 303; People v. Ramos, 282 A.D.2d 622).
The photograph at issue was properly admitted to establish the location and the extent of the victim's wounds and to corroborate evidence that the defendant had struck the victim in the head with a bottle (see People v. Wood, 79 N.Y.2d 958; People v. Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, cert denied 416 U.S. 905; People v. Deberry, 234 A.D.2d 470; People v. Ponce, 213 A.D.2d 725).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Cox, 286 N.Y. 137; People v. Persaud, 245 A.D.2d 313; People v. Stanley, 173 A.D.2d 658; People v. Kindlon, 217 A.D.2d 793; People v. Rosich, 170 A.D.2d 703; People v. Henderson, 163 A.D.2d 888).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.