PEOPLE v. HANLON (2008)

On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of perjury in the first degree (Penal Law § 210.15), defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence because he did not intentionally testify falsely under oath.   According to defendant, he was intoxicated during the incident that was the subject of his testimony and he believed the facts to be as he testified.   Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919) and, in any event, it is without merit (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we conclude that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury based on the evidence at trial, i.e., that defendant's testimony was “intentional rather than inadvertent falsifying” (People v. Davis, 53 N.Y.2d 164, 173, 440 N.Y.S.2d 864, 423 N.E.2d 341;  see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   We further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally id.), and that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: