PEOPLE v. HENRY (2000)

 Defendant's conviction of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[2] ) is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, People v. Roe, 74 N.Y.2d 20, 27, 544 N.Y.S.2d 297, 542 N.E.2d 610;  People v. Jack, 199 A.D.2d 980, 606 N.Y.S.2d 471, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 854, 612 N.Y.S.2d 385, 634 N.E.2d 986) and is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   County Court did not abuse its discretion by its Sandoval ruling.   The record establishes that the court carefully balanced the probative value of the prior convictions against the potential for undue prejudice to defendant (see, People v. Laraby, 219 A.D.2d 817, 632 N.Y.S.2d 355, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 849, 644 N.Y.S.2d 696, 667 N.E.2d 346, 88 N.Y.2d 937, 647 N.Y.S.2d 171, 670 N.E.2d 455;  see generally, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 375, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413).

 The court did not abuse its discretion in admitting in evidence the photographs of the deceased victim in a snowbank and at the autopsy (see, People v. Williams, 241 A.D.2d 911, 912, 663 N.Y.S.2d 1023, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 837, 667 N.Y.S.2d 691, 690 N.E.2d 500).   The photographs were used to illustrate relevant evidence as testified to by the witnesses (see, People v. Wood, 79 N.Y.2d 958, 960, 582 N.Y.S.2d 992, 591 N.E.2d 1178;  People v. Harrison, 207 A.D.2d 359, 615 N.Y.S.2d 449, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 936, 621 N.Y.S.2d 533, 645 N.E.2d 1233).

 Defendant contends that the court should have instructed the jury that the deal of leniency that was made by the prosecutor with an eyewitness was illegal.   We disagree.   The court's instruction to the jury on impeachment by benefit conferred “was fairly balanced and stated the applicable rule in clear and understandable language” (People v. Agosto, 73 N.Y.2d 963, 967, 540 N.Y.S.2d 988, 538 N.E.2d 340;  see, 1 CJI[NY] 7.24).   We reject defendant's further contention that the court's instruction concerning consciousness of guilt was unduly prejudicial.   The evidence established that defendant fled from the crime scene, later returned to the scene and hid the body, and then fled to another city.   The court properly instructed the jury concerning the weakness of that evidence as an indication of consciousness of guilt (see, People v. Yazum, 13 N.Y.2d 302, 304, 246 N.Y.S.2d 626, 196 N.E.2d 263, rearg. denied 15 N.Y.2d 857, 257 N.Y.S.2d 963, 205 N.E.2d 881;  People v. Dugan, 238 A.D.2d 922, 923, 661 N.Y.S.2d 121, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 857, 661 N.Y.S.2d 184, 683 N.E.2d 1058;  People v. Lockerby, 178 A.D.2d 805, 807, 577 N.Y.S.2d 703, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 834, 587 N.Y.S.2d 919, 600 N.E.2d 646).   Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: