Opinion
No. 641 KA 18-00222
09-27-2024
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. ALEXANDER WHITEHILL RIDEOUT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, BANASIAK LAW OFFICE, PLLC, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (MARTIN P. MCCARTHY, II, OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, BANASIAK LAW OFFICE, PLLC, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (MARTIN P. MCCARTHY, II, OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., BANNISTER, MONTOUR, DELCONTE, AND HANNAH, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas E. Moran, J.), rendered October 24, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of tampering with physical evidence (two counts).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of two counts of tampering with physical evidence (Penal Law § 215.40 [2]). Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the indictment and bill of particulars provided defendant with "fair notice of the accusations made against him, so that he [was] able to prepare a defense" (People v Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 594 [1978]; see People v Schulz, 32 A.D.3d 1224, 1224 [4th Dept 2006]; see generally People v Morris, 61 N.Y.2d 290, 293-296 [1984]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude that the circumstantial evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 62 [2001], rearg denied 97 N.Y.2d 678 [2001]), is legally sufficient to support the conviction (see People v Neulander, 221 A.D.3d 1412, 1412-1413 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 984 [2024]; People v Maull, 167 A.D.3d 1465, 1466 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 951 [2019]). Finally, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 [1987]).