Summary
finding evidence that defendant shot victim after a fight and attempt by victim's friend to appease defendant established depraved indifference to human life
Summary of this case from Gaskin v. GrahamOpinion
October 12, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted, inter alia, of the felony murder of the victim on August 31, 1989. He now contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the testimony of the People's main witness was incredible as a matter of law. We disagree. 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. The facts cited by the defendant are insufficient to render the testimony of the witness incredible as a matter of law (see, People v. Di Girolamo, 108 A.D.2d 755). Furthermore, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded 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). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Nor was the defendant deprived of effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The mere fact that different attorneys assisted the defendant's case at different times does not render their assistance ineffective (see, People v. Hayes, 186 A.D.2d 268). The defense counsel was clearly familiar with the facts of the case (cf., People v. Graham, 169 A.D.2d 512; People v Edmond, 84 A.D.2d 938; People v. Gonzalez, 43 A.D.2d 914), and argued cogently for leniency.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.