Opinion
June 12, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leis, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People failed to prove that he had the requisite intent to be convicted of attempted murder in the second degree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant intended to cause the death of an undercover officer who was pursuing him. This intent was established by the defendant's overt acts of pulling out his gun, turning it towards the officer, and firing it at least twice (see, People v. Van Buren, 213 A.D.2d 504). That the defendant missed his target did not detract from the evidence that he aimed and fired at the undercover officer (see, People v. Danielson, 184 A.D.2d 723, 724; compare, People v. Rodriguez, 63 A.D.2d 919, 920). 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 also contends that the court wrongfully denied his challenge for cause of a juror who expressed his view that if a person takes out a gun, then that person intends to use it. A challenge for cause may be made if the prospective juror has "a state of mind that is likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial" (CPL 270.20 [b]). However, the issue for the jury in this case was not whether the defendant used the gun as there was no question as to that. Therefore, this prospective juror, who affirmed to the court that he could be fair and impartial and could render a verdict based on the evidence, was a suitable juror and the defendant's challenge for cause was properly denied (see, People v. Wynn, 172 A.D.2d 1038).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.