Opinion
66 A.D.3d 424 886 N.Y.S.2d 394 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mujahid MUHAMMAD, Defendant-Appellant. 2009-07157 Supreme Court of New York, First Department October 6, 2009
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Peter Theis of counsel), for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Sheila L. Bautista of counsel), for respondent.
SAXE, J.P., SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, ACOSTA, RICHTER, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered April 2, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). Defendant was driving a car that contained two forged credit cards. Although the car was registered to another person, the circumstances, including the proximity of the cards to items that can reasonably be inferred to be defendant's property, supported the conclusion that defendant was aware he possessed the cards.
Taken as a whole ( see People v. Drake, 7 N.Y.3d 28, 34, 817 N.Y.S.2d 583, 850 N.E.2d 630 [2006] ), the court's charge properly conveyed to the jury that the People were required to prove defendant knew he possessed the credit cards. The court properly responded to notes from the deliberating jury by complying with the jury's specific request for rereading of the court's original charge on this subject ( see People v. Santi, 3 N.Y.3d 234, 248-249, 785 N.Y.S.2d 405, 818 N.E.2d 1146 [2004]; People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 449 N.Y.S.2d 168, 434 N.E.2d 237 [1982], cert. denied 459 U.S. 847, 103 S.Ct. 104, 74 L.Ed.2d 93 [1982] ). The jury did not express confusion or request clarifying instructions.