Opinion
458 KA 19-00205
05-01-2020
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. JAMES BALTAZAR, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SESSLER LAW PC, GENESEO (STEVEN D. SESSLER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. GREGORY J. MCCAFFREY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (JOSHUA J. TONRA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT:
SESSLER LAW PC, GENESEO (STEVEN D. SESSLER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
GREGORY J. MCCAFFREY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (JOSHUA J. TONRA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Robert B. Wiggins, J.), rendered December 4, 2018. The judgment convicted defendant upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [3]), defendant contends that the conviction is based on legally insufficient evidence. We reject that contention. The People were required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted "[w]ith intent to prevent a peace officer . . . from performing a lawful duty" (id.). Here, a correction officer testified that he was returning defendant to his cell when defendant head-butted him. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that there is
" a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt' " (People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]; see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).
Contrary to defendant's further contention, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see Danielson, 9 NY3d at 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).
Entered: May 1, 2020
Mark W. Bennett
Clerk of the Court