Opinion
December 30, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People failed to disprove her justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. This issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 250). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), the record establishes that the defense of justification was disproved beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Martinez, 149 A.D.2d 438; People v Tineo, 144 A.D.2d 507, 508). The defendant shot the decedent four times at close range as he was sitting on a bed smoking a cigarette. At the time that the defendant shot him, the decedent was unarmed and posed no threat to her safety (see, People v Martinez, supra; People v Tineo, supra). Moreover, the autopsy revealed that, contrary to the defendant's testimony, the decedent had only small amounts of opiates and cocaine in his system prior to his death and no alcohol. The People also presented testimony at trial that the defendant, when interviewed by the police, exhibited no sign of injury. Thus, the jury apparently rejected the defendant's version of events and chose to believe the People's witnesses (see, People v Williams, 160 A.D.2d 753, 754). Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed when, as here, it is supported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Evidence of the defendant's disposition of the murder weapon (she threw it out of a window), while of limited probative value, constituted circumstantial evidence of her consciousness of guilt (see, People v Williams, supra; People v Martinez, 144 A.D.2d 699, 701).
The defendant's sentence was proper (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they do not warrant reversal. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Harwood and Copertino, JJ., concur.