Opinion
Argued April 30, 2001.
May 21, 2001.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered May 19, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Daniel L. Greenberg, New York, N.Y. (Cynthia Colt and Kevin Casey of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Caroline R. Donhauser of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, P.J., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, NANCY E. SMITH and BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his identity as the shooter was not proven by legally sufficient evidence because the eyewitnesses to the shooting gave trial testimony which was materially inconsistent with their prior statements to the police and their Grand Jury testimony, both of which tended to show that his twin brother was the shooter. He further contends that even if he was the shooter, the proof failed to establish that he acted with depraved indifference to human life. However, neither claim is preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Padro, 75 N.Y.2d 820; People v. Pinder, 269 A.D.2d 547; People v. Grossfeld, 216 A.D.2d 319, 320). In any event, 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 permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that the defendant shot the victim, and that he acted with depraved indifference to human life (see, People v. Rammelkamp, 167 A.D.2d 560; People v. Languena, 129 A.D.2d 587).
The claimed inconsistencies in the eyewitnesses' testimony were also fully explored at trial. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented were primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, 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 unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafalo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88; see also, People v. Pinder, supra; People v. Baptiste, 248 A.D.2d 625; People v. Mack, 178 A.D.2d 661). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.
BRACKEN, P.J., O'BRIEN, SMITH and COZIER, JJ., concur.