Opinion
March 16, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bourgeois, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the evidence adduced at the trial was sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Our review of the record indicates that a rational trier of the facts could have properly concluded that, acting with the requisite mental culpability, the defendant participated in the robbery of the victim (see, People v. Vazquez, 115 A.D.2d 626; People v. Reyes, 82 A.D.2d 925, 926). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the evidence was of sufficient quality and quantity to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant failed to establish his affirmative defense to the felony murder charge, since the jury could have found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that the other participant in the crime was armed with an instrument readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury and of a sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons (see, Penal Law § 125.25 [c]). There is no basis in the record for disturbing the determination of the court at the hearing that the defendant's statements to the police and to an Assistant District Attorney were voluntarily made (see, People v. Foskey, 115 A.D.2d 558; People v. Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726) and were not the result of an unlawful detention (see, People v. Kirby, 124 A.D.2d 67). The court did not abuse its discretion in permitting inquiry into a prior conviction of the defendant for attempted petit larceny for purposes of impeaching his credibility (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371), nor were the sentences imposed by the court an abuse of its discretion (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.