PEOPLE & C., APPELLANT, v. JOSE ROSSEY, RESPONDENT.
89 N.Y.2d 970, 678 N.E.2d 473, 655 N.Y.S.2d 861 (1997).
February 13, 1997
2 No. 20 (1997 NY Int. 16)
Decided February 13, 1997
______________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Johnnette Traill, for Appellant.
Carlos G. Manalansan, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case
remitted to that court for consideration of the facts and other issues
raised but not considered on the appeal to that court.
Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree (Penal Law
125.25(1)) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third
degrees (Penal Law §§ 265.02(4) and 265.03). The Appellate Division
reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment, concluding that
the evidence "when viewed in the light most favorable to the People,
fails to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted
in concert with Ocasio to intentionally cause Guerra's death" (222
AD2d 710, 712). The court further noted that the evidence did not
prove beyond a reasonable doubt or to a moral certainty that the
defendant shared the intent to kill Guerra and that the evidence does
not exclude the 'fair inference' that the defendant did not share in
Ocasio's intention to kill Guerra (People v Rossey, supra, at 711).
This standard was erroneous.
Generally, including a circumstantial evidence case, "the standard of
(appellate) review in determining whether the evidence before the jury
was legally sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt is whether the evidence, viewed in the light most
favorable to the People, could lead a rational trier of fact to
conclude that the elements of the crime had been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt" (People v Cabey, 85 NY2d 417, 420; see also,
People v Norman, 85 NY2d 609, 620). Although the evidence that
defendant shared Ocasio's intention to kill was circumstantial, the
test for appellate review on the issue of the legal sufficiency of the
evidence is the same for both direct and circumstantial evidence
SNIPPETS:
PEOPLE & C., APPELLANT, v. JOSE ROSSEY, RESPONDENT.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to that court
Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25(1)) and criminal
The Appellate Division reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment, concluding that
The court further noted that the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt or to a
This standard was erroneous.
Generally, including a circumstantial evidence case, "the standard of review in determining
Although the evidence that defendant shared Ocasio's intention to kill was circumstantial,
Viewed in a light most favorable to the People, theevidence indicated that the defendant
This evidence allows a rational trier of facts to conclude that the defendant was acting in
Therefore, under the correct appellate standard of review, the evidence is legally sufficient
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.
|
