Opinion
September 5, 2000.
October 10, 2000.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Braun, J.), rendered June 12, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (De Nice Powell of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, Gavin Walcott, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Stephen Dixon-Gordon of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
While the eyewitness to the shooting herein had an unsavory and criminal background and testified pursuant to a cooperation agreement, these facts raised an issue of credibility which the jury resolved in favor of the prosecution (see, People v. Alston, 243 A.D.2d 573; People v. McDaniel, 233 A.D.2d 343; People v. Dennis, 223 A.D.2d 599; People v. Taylor, 177 A.D.2d 727). 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 trial court did not err in admitting the victim's statements to the responding police officers on the basis that the statements constituted excited utterances (see, People v. Vasquez, 88 N.Y.2d 561; People v. Brown, 70 N.Y.2d 513). The circumstances under which the victim made the statements, identifying the defendant as the shooter, "reasonably justify the conclusion that the remarks were not made under the impetus of studied reflection" (People v. Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493, 497; see also, People v. Durio, 175 A.D.2d 842, 844; People v. Moore, 173 A.D.2d 568).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not require reversal.