Opinion
7709 Ind. 4872/15
11-27-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jonathan MUNOZ, Defendant–Appellant.
Worth, Longworth & London LLP, New York (Howard B. Sterinbach of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Brent Ferguson of counsel), for respondent.
Worth, Longworth & London LLP, New York (Howard B. Sterinbach of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Brent Ferguson of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kern, Oing, Singh, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered June 6, 2017, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (two counts), official misconduct (two counts) and making a punishable false written statement, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge for a period of three years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict is 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] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations.
As to the false instrument convictions, a surveillance videotape of the search and arrest of two people overwhelmingly established that defendant, a police officer, knowingly made false statements in an arrest report and criminal complaint regarding the sequence of events leading to the arrest. The video plainly shows that defendant suddenly lunged towards one of the arrestees in an attempt to grab that person's cell phone. This was in stark contrast to the arrest report and criminal complaint, where defendant alleged that the arrestee was the aggressor. Given the glaring and significant discrepancies, the jury could have reasonably inferred from the video that defendant knowingly misrepresented the sequence of events in the documents, and it appropriately rejected defendant's self-serving claims that this discrepancy was merely a mistake.
The weight of the evidence also supported the misdemeanor convictions. We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.