Summary
holding evidence was legally sufficient, in light of police officers' identification of defendant from surveillance video
Summary of this case from Lancaster v. CapraOpinion
12-23-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Adrian BROWN, Defendant–Appellant.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Victoria M. White of Counsel), for Respondent.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Victoria M. White of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10[1] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that County Court properly exercised its discretion at trial in permitting the responding police officers to identify defendant as one of the perpetrators depicted in the surveillance videos of the crime inasmuch as there was some basis for concluding that the officers were more likely to identify defendant correctly from the videos than was the jury (see People v. Montanez, 135 A.D.3d 528, 528, 25 N.Y.S.3d 18, lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 1072, 38 N.Y.S.3d 842, 60 N.E.3d 1208 ; People v. Magin, 1 A.D.3d 1024, 1025, 767 N.Y.S.2d 366 ; see generally People v. Rivera, 259 A.D.2d 316, 316–317, 684 N.Y.S.2d 787 ). The officers' testimony thus " ‘served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the man in the [video] was indeed the defendant’ " (Montanez, 135 A.D.3d at 528, 25 N.Y.S.3d 18 ). We note that the court properly instructed the jury that the officers merely provided their opinions that defendant was depicted in the videos and that the jurors were the ultimate finders of fact on the issue of the identity of the perpetrators (see Rivera, 259 A.D.2d at 317, 684 N.Y.S.2d 787 ; see generally People v. Walker, 96 A.D.3d 1481, 1482, 946 N.Y.S.2d 373, lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 989, 958 N.Y.S.2d 704, 982 N.E.2d 624 ), and the jury is presumed to have followed the court's instructions (see Walker, 96 A.D.3d at 1482, 946 N.Y.S.2d 373 ).
We reject defendant's contention that the court erred in denying his request to charge the lesser included offense of attempted robbery in the second degree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, we conclude that there is no reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that he committed the lesser but not the greater offense (see People v. Wells, 18 A.D.3d 482, 483, 794 N.Y.S.2d 125, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 811, 803 N.Y.S.2d 40, 836 N.E.2d 1163 ). Indeed, given the evidence adduced at trial, "the jury would have to resort to ‘sheer speculation’ to determine that defendant and his codefendants attempted to rob the victim but did not take any property" (People v. McCullough, 278 A.D.2d 915, 916–917, 718 N.Y.S.2d 526, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 803, 726 N.Y.S.2d 381, 750 N.E.2d 83 ).
Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the evidence, including the surveillance videos and the police officers' testimony, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), is legally sufficient to establish defendant's identity, and thus to support the conviction of the crime charged (see People v. Birmingham, 261 A.D.2d 942, 942, 690 N.Y.S.2d 792, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 1014, 697 N.Y.S.2d 573, 719 N.E.2d 934 ; see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Moreover, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.