Opinion
January 26, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and bearing in mind that matters concerning credibility are for the jury's resolution and will not lightly be overturned on appeal (see, People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428; People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; People v Bauer, 113 A.D.2d 543, 551), the jury's verdict was adequately supported by the evidence since a "`rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt'" (People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, quoting from Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319). The testimony established that the defendant shot one of his victims in the back at close range when that victim tried to flee in an attempt to thwart the defendant's robbery attempt. The jury was justified in inferring, based on these facts, an intent on the part of the defendant to kill (see, People v. Peter, 122 A.D.2d 894; People v Colon, 113 A.D.2d 897; People v. Burke, 73 A.D.2d 627).
The court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the prosecutor, in the event that the defendant chose to testify, to elicit the fact that the defendant had been previously convicted of a misdemeanor on three occasions, as these convictions were probative of the defendant's credibility and were not unduly prejudicial. Further, nothing in the record warrants a modification of the defendant's sentence. Niehoff, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.