Opinion
07-26-2024
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Fontasia TORAN, Defendant-Appellant.
MICHAEL STEINBERG, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY W. OASTLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Thomas J. Miller, J.), rendered December 28, 2022. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of manslaughter in the first degree.
MICHAEL STEINBERG, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY W. OASTLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. PRESENT: LINDLEY, J.P., CURRAN, OGDEN, GREENWOOD, AND KEANE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her, upon a jury verdict, of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]), defendant contends that the evidence of intent to cause serious physical injury is legally insufficient and that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 [1983]), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish the element of intent to cause serious physical injury to the victim (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987]). Moreover, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the testimony of one of the People’s witnesses was not incredible as a matter of law and "any inconsistencies in that testimony merely presented a credibility issue for the jury to resolve" (People v. Fricke, 216 A.D.3d 1446, 1447, 188 N.Y.S.3d 323 [4th Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 928, 192 N.Y.S.3d 515, 213 N.E.3d 657 [2023]). Defendant’s contention that County Court erred in failing to instruct the jury on wholly circumstantial evidence is not preserved for our review (see generally CPL 470.05 [2]; People v. Robinson, 88 N.Y.2d 1001, 1001-1002, 648 N.Y.S.2d 869, 671 N.E.2d 1266 [1996]). We decline to exercise our power to review that issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
We also reject defendant’s contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Finally, we have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it does not warrant modification or reversal of the judgment.