Opinion
3557, 1947/11.
03-28-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tyshell WILLIAMS, Defendant–Appellant.
John S. Campo, Hempstead, for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Andrew J. Zapata of counsel), for respondent.
John S. Campo, Hempstead, for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Andrew J. Zapata of counsel), for respondent.
RICHTER, J.P., MAZZARELLI, KAHN, GESMER, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Eugene Oliver, J.), rendered September 30, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing her to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility. The evidence established that defendant furnished a weapon to the codefendant, who fired it at the victims.
The court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to introduce a diagram for the purpose of aiding the jury in understanding the complex relationship among various persons involved in the incident (see People v. Del Vermo, 192 N.Y. 470, 482, 85 N.E. 690 [1908] ; People v. Shields, 100 A.D.3d 549, 550–551, 954 N.Y.S.2d 97 [1st Dept.2012] ), and in admitting evidence of a prior altercation that provided relevant background to the charged crime (see People v. Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 16, 19, 874 N.Y.S.2d 866, 903 N.E.2d 263 [2009] ).
The court did not err in giving the jury a lunch recess during the prosecutor's summation, which had followed summations by the attorneys for defendant and the codefendant. Such scheduling matters are addressed to the court's sound discretion (see People v. Spears, 64 N.Y.2d 698, 699–700, 485 N.Y.S.2d 521, 474 N.E.2d 1189 [1984] ), and defendant has not shown any resulting prejudice.