Opinion
October 7, 1992
Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Green, Pine, Boehm and Doerr, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of the attempted robbery and murder of Wallie Howard, a Syracuse police officer, who was posing as a drug purchaser in an undercover buy-bust operation. Defendant was also convicted of assault involving another victim. We reject defendant's argument that the trial court erred by refusing to give a circumstantial evidence charge in relation to the murder and attempted robbery counts. Where "the circumstances surrounding the crime were established by direct proof in the form of the prosecution witnesses' testimony, and the inferences to be drawn therefrom were clear, strong and logical", a circumstantial evidence charge is not required (People v Schermerhorn, 125 A.D.2d 729, 731, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 955; see also, People v Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 380-381). Here, eyewitness testimony placed defendant on the scene, walking toward Howard's vehicle immediately before the shooting, and another eyewitness testified that, immediately after the shots rang out, she observed defendant standing next to Howard's vehicle holding in his hand a smoking gun. There was also direct evidence of a robbery attempt, as surveillance officers heard defendant or his codefendant yell, "where is the money?" as they approached the undercover officer's vehicle. Moreover, even if we were to conclude that the trial court erred by failing to give a circumstantial evidence charge, the error would be harmless (see, People v Daddona, 181 A.D.2d 688; People v Sumter, 173 A.D.2d 659, 660, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 975).
The evidence that defendant fired a shot at close range into Howard's head was sufficient to support the inference that defendant intended to kill the victim (see, People v Green, 143 A.D.2d 768, 770, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 922; People v Morris, 141 A.D.2d 769, 770, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 1048; People v Mierzwa, 124 A.D.2d 1038, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 714; People v Austin, 106 A.D.2d 859). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). The record before us is not sufficient to permit review of defendant's claim, set forth in his pro se supplemental brief, that pretrial publicity made it impossible for him to receive a fair trial. It does not appear that a motion was made for a change of venue, and because jury selection was not recorded, we cannot determine whether counsel was unable to select a fair and impartial jury (see, People v Parker, 60 N.Y.2d 714, 715). Finally, we decline to modify defendant's sentence in the interest of justice.