PEOPLE v. CUMBA (1999)

The evidence adduced at trial is legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of assault in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 20.00, 120.10[1] ).   Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant solicited the shooter, drove the shooter to the scene and lured the victim outside while the shooter was lying in wait (see, People v. Rossey, 89 N.Y.2d 970, 655 N.Y.S.2d 861, 678 N.E.2d 473).   “The fact that the evidence might be subject to an interpretation different from that credited by the jury” does not warrant the conclusion that the People failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Moore, 172 A.D.2d 855, 569 N.Y.S.2d 214, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 970, 574 N.Y.S.2d 950, 580 N.E.2d 422).   The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: