From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Kurtish

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 11, 1990
165 A.D.2d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

September 11, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.).


Within minutes after shots rang out inside 825 West End Avenue, the police discovered defendant inside the basement hallway. His white shirt was covered with blood, he was holding a .9 millimeter clip, and he possessed several rounds of ammunition in his pocket. In a nearby locker room, the victim, defendant's former friend and employee, lay dead as a result of several gunshot wounds. Defendant promptly volunteered to the police that a "black man" was responsible. At the trial, defendant testified he had "lied" about the "black man" out of fear, and that in actuality the decedent had ambushed him, and that the gun went off as defendant struggled to defend himself.

Defendant's exculpatory version of the incident, by no means a confession or direct acknowledgment of guilt, did not constitute direct evidence (cf., People v. Burke, 62 N.Y.2d 860, 861), and since there were no eyewitnesses, the prosecution's case depended solely on circumstantial evidence. (See, People v. Montanez, 41 N.Y.2d 53, 57.) Although the trial court failed to charge the jury on the standard to be applied in cases where the evidence is wholly circumstantial, the court's charge adequately conveyed to the jury the proper standards for evaluating the evidence that was presented. (People v. Adams, 69 N.Y.2d 805, 806.) The court delivered a detailed charge which, viewed as a whole, correctly advised the jury that if two inferences could be drawn from the evidence, one consistent with innocence, the jury was bound to draw the inference consistent with innocence. While the court did not tell the jury that the evidence had to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to a moral certainty, a charge which we note, parenthetically, has been criticized by some as confusing (see, People v. Gonzalez, 54 N.Y.2d 729, 733 [concurring opn of Fuchsberg, J.]), the charge as a whole adequately conveyed the appropriate standard to the jury.

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Rosenberger, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Kurtish

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 11, 1990
165 A.D.2d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Kurtish

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HAKI KURTISH, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Sep 11, 1990

Citations

165 A.D.2d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
564 N.Y.S.2d 247

Citing Cases

People v. Wooley

We do not agree with the defendant's contention that the court erred in failing to charge the jury that his…

People v. Walker

Contrary to defendant's contention, the court's circumstantial evidence charge was proper. Although the court…