Opinion
May 8, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the hearing court properly determined that the defendant was competent to stand trial (see, CPL 730.10), that his continued silence and unwillingness to communicate with his attorney was willful conduct, and that he was a malingerer (see, People v Gordon, 125 A.D.2d 587). Where the hearing court is presented with conflicting evidence of competency, great deference will be accorded its findings (see, People v Carl, 58 A.D.2d 948, revd on other grounds 46 N.Y.2d 806). The court did not err in denying the defendant's repeated requests for additional competency hearings. The People had sustained their burden of establishing the defendant's fitness by a preponderance of credible evidence through the testimony of two psychiatrists whose opinions are entitled to great weight (People v Breeden, 115 A.D.2d 484; see, People v Picozzi, 106 A.D.2d 413, 414; People v Allen, 135 A.D.2d 823).
Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. The People proved that the defendant sold two packets of cocaine to undercover Officer Garcia and was arrested immediately thereafter in possession of the prerecorded "buy" money and additional cocaine. The People further established that the defendant aimed a partially loaded revolver at the two arresting officers and pulled the trigger twice. The first two chambers of the revolver were empty and the defendant was subdued prior to his squeezing the trigger a third time on a loaded chamber. The defendant's intent to kill the two officers may readily be inferred (see, People v Milea, 112 A.D.2d 1011, 1013, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 921; cf., People v Davis, 72 N.Y.2d 32). 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 (CPL 470.15).
The trial court did not err in denying the defense request for a jury charge on agency. No reasonable view of the evidence exists to support the view that the defendant acted as a mere instrumentality of the buyer (see, People v Vargas, 135 A.D.2d 853; cf., People v Gonzales, 66 A.D.2d 828). Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.