Opinion
1060 KA 13-00067.
10-02-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Andrew RAJCZAK, Jr., Defendant–Appellant.
Robert M. Pusateri, Conflict Defender, Lockport (Edward P. Perlman of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Doreen M. Hoffmann of Counsel), for Respondent.
Robert M. Pusateri, Conflict Defender, Lockport (Edward P. Perlman of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Doreen M. Hoffmann of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2 ] ), attempted petit larceny (§§ 110.00, 155.25 ), and criminal trespass in the second degree (§ 140.15 ). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). We note in particular that, although it would not have been unreasonable for the jury to find that defendant did not have the requisite intent to commit the crimes of burglary in the second degree and attempted petit larceny, defendant's intent to commit those crimes may be inferred from “his ‘unexplained presence on the premises, and [his] actions and statements when confronted by [the] police [and] the property owner’ ” (People v. James, 114 A.D.3d 1202, 1205, 980 N.Y.S.2d 645, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1199, 986 N.Y.S.2d 420, 9 N.E.3d 915 ). Here, we conclude that “it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded” (People v. Martinez, 118 A.D.3d 1446, 1447, 988 N.Y.S.2d 787 ).
We reject defendant's further contention that County Court erred in permitting the People to ask a defense witness about defendant's prior arrest for attempted burglary. “ ‘A defense witness who has not testified as a character witness on direct examination may not be cross-examined about the defendant's criminal record ... However, once the defendant has introduced character evidence, the People may question the defense witness about whether he or she has heard of the defendant's previous criminal acts, since such questions are relevant to the ability of the character witness to accurately reflect the defendant's reputation in the community’ ” (People v. Marzug, 280 A.D.2d 974, 975, 721 N.Y.S.2d 220, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 904, 730 N.Y.S.2d 801, 756 N.E.2d 89 ; see People v. Kuss, 32 N.Y.2d 436, 443, 345 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 299 N.E.2d 249, rearg. denied 33 N.Y.2d 644, 347 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 301 N.E.2d 558, cert. denied 415 U.S. 913, 94 S.Ct. 1408, 39 L.Ed.2d 467 ). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.