From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Weay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 2003
2 A.D.3d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2001-07605.

December 1, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered July 30, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Hanophy, J.), of the defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony.

Robert DiDio, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Noreen Healey of counsel; Brian Frye on the brief), for respondent.

Before: BARRY A. COZIER, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress the identification testimony of two eyewitnesses. The defendant's claim that the lineup identification procedure was unduly suggestive simply because the defendant sat in the number five position in the lineup, by his choice, and four days earlier had been depicted in position number five in a two-tier six-photograph array, is without merit ( see People v. Munoz, 223 A.D.2d 370).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 ( see CPL 470.15). The evidence adduced at trial revealed that the defendant, who spontaneously opened fire into the street as several people ran to get away from him and shot the deceased in the back of the head, acted with a depraved indifference to human life ( see People v. Fenner, 61 N.Y.2d 971).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, COZIER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Weay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 2003
2 A.D.3d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Weay

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., Respondent, v. SIDIKI WEAY, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 1, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
767 N.Y.S.2d 847

Citing Cases

Weay v. Haponick

As to the sufficiency of the evidence question, Weay argued that the medical evidence established that the…

People v. Martuscello

In 2001, petitioner was convicted of, among other things, murder in the second degree and was sentenced to a…