From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pacheco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 21, 1987
135 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

December 21, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The circumstantial evidence adduced at trial was sufficient as a matter of law to support the defendant's conviction of the crime charged (see, People v Pena, 50 N.Y.2d 400, 407, rearg denied 51 N.Y.2d 770, cert denied 449 U.S. 1087). This court has stated that appellate review of the legal sufficiency of even a wholly circumstantial case requires only a determination "that the jury did not indulge in any unwarranted inferences in applying the reasonable hypothesis standard and that the jury reached a reasonable determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", not that every hypothesis other than guilt must be excluded by the evidence (People v Betancourt, 111 A.D.2d 762, 763, affd 68 N.Y.2d 707).

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). The testimony of the People's witness was neither "physically impossible", "manifestly untrue", nor "self-contradictory" (see, People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88).

Defense counsel's request that the court not charge the jury with voluntary intoxication constituted a waiver of the defendant's right to such a charge (1 CJI[NY] 9.45; see, People v Higgins, 5 N.Y.2d 607).

Neither may the defendant be heard to complain of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to his request that the court not charge voluntary intoxication. Courts are cautioned not to second-guess trial strategy nor to confuse ineffective assistance of counsel with failed trial strategy (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; People v Dudley, 110 A.D.2d 652). In the instant case, defense counsel presented evidence of the defendant's intoxication in an attempt to show impossibility and misidentification, not as a defense to negative the intent element of the burglary in the third degree charge. Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Pacheco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 21, 1987
135 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Pacheco

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. VALENTINO PACHECO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 21, 1987

Citations

135 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Stone

dgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Yates County Court for…

People v. Rodriquez

The defendant has not alleged any facts indicating that his trial counsel's representation was…