Opinion
October 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J., Tomei, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence, which consisted of the defendant's fingerprints on the doorplate, closet, and dresser of the victims' apartment, where the victims, two women, were found bound and gagged with duct tape and shot in the back of the head, was legally insufficient to establish his guilt, is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, 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. "Fingerprint evidence, although circumstantial in nature, is sufficient proof if it leads to a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and excludes every hypothesis of innocence" (People v. Murray, 168 A.D.2d 573; see also, People v. Minore, 110 A.D.2d 661; People v. Sparacino, 150 A.D.2d 814; People v Vasquez, 131 A.D.2d 523; People v. Talley, 110 A.D.2d 792; People v. Pena, 99 A.D.2d 846; People v. Bullard, 59 A.D.2d 786). Moreover, 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 defendant's contention regarding the jury charge is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, any error was harmless.
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.