Opinion
2000-05550, 2000-05552
Argued September 10, 2002
October 1, 2002
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered June 2, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and tampering with physical evidence under Indictment No. 2000/98, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered June 2, 2000, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court under Superior Court Information No. 2880/96, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his prior conviction of attempted burglary in the third degree.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Melissa S. Horlick of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Roni C. Piplani of counsel), for respondent.
Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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. Additionally, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to 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, 94). 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, 88). 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 Supreme Court properly determined that evidence that the defendant had previously possessed a gun, and that he was an undocumented alien, was relevant to establish the defendant's motive, which was, in part, to rob the deceased in order to obtain his alien registration card, and to refute his defense that the shooting was accidental and occurred during a struggle (see People v. Vargas, 88 N.Y.2d 856, 858; People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233; People v. Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; People v. Lee, 284 A.D.2d 412; People v. McMurray, 271 A.D.2d 460; People v. Basir, 179 A.D.2d 662, 664; People v. Dunston, 159 A.D.2d 387, 388).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.