Opinion
November 16, 1998
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of the murder of his wife. Although the defendant reported his wife's death to the police as a suicide, at trial the prosecution presented medical and forensic evidence to support its theory that the defendant pushed the victim over the second-floor railing of their home, and then doused her body with a container of octane booster.
On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to prove his guilt of murder in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. Although the proof of the defendant's guilt was primarily circumstantial, circumstantial evidence "is not a disfavored form of proof and, in fact, may be stronger than direct evidence" ( People v. Geraci, 85 N.Y.2d 359, 369). The People presented extensive expert testimony to establish that the victim's death was not a suicide or a result of an accident, as well as testimony which indicated that the defendant had a motive to kill his wife. 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. 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).
In addition, we reject the defendant's claim that he was deprived of a fair trial because his children were permitted to testify about a prior incident when he damaged a photograph of his wife, plunged a knife into her bed, and instructed his son to find his mother and warn her that she would be killed if she came home. Contrary to the defendant's contention, this was evidence of prior domestic violence aimed at the victim, which was properly admitted to establish the defendant's motive and to rebut his defense that the victim committed suicide ( see, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 291-293; People v. Johnson, 213 A.D.2d 675; People v. Rolf, 185 A.D.2d 656; People v. Dyes, 122 A.D.2d 69).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or relate to issues which constitute harmless error under the circumstances of this case.
O'Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.