PEOPLE v. TAM (1999)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.), rendered July 8, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of three counts of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

 The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence, which included testimony that defendant was the gang leader of the two actual killers and possessed the authority to command them to execute the three victims, as well as the testimony of several witnesses who overheard defendant issue such a command.   The jury had ample basis upon which to reject any innocent interpretation of defendant's statements and conduct (see, People v. Safian, 46 N.Y.2d 181, 188, 413 N.Y.S.2d 118, 385 N.E.2d 1046, cert. denied 443 U.S. 912, 99 S.Ct. 3103, 61 L.Ed.2d 876).

 Evidence of defendant's prior bad acts as a gang member was properly admitted to explain how defendant had the power to command the killers, as well as defendant's motive (see, People v. Tai, 224 A.D.2d 328, 638 N.Y.S.2d 45, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 942, 647 N.Y.S.2d 176, 670 N.E.2d 460;  People v. Boyd, 164 A.D.2d 800, 803, 560 N.Y.S.2d 15, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 904, 569 N.Y.S.2d 936, 572 N.E.2d 619).   The other prior bad acts evidence contested by defendant on appeal was actually elicited at trial by him, not the People.

 Defendant's right to counsel was not violated by the admission of testimony of a fellow inmate, since that individual had acted independently and on his own initiative with respect to defendant, notwithstanding his possible cooperation with the authorities as a government agent concerning a different, prior matter (see, People v. Cardona, 41 N.Y.2d 333, 335, 392 N.Y.S.2d 606, 360 N.E.2d 1306;  People v. Belgrave, 172 A.D.2d 335, 568 N.Y.S.2d 404, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 962, 574 N.Y.S.2d 941, 580 N.E.2d 413).

 The separate execution-style gunshots to the heads of the three victims constituted separate acts, permitting the imposition of consecutive sentences (see, People v. Brathwaite, 63 N.Y.2d 839, 842-843, 482 N.Y.S.2d 253, 472 N.E.2d 29), and we perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.