Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Donovan BYFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered November 29, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of life without parole, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant's homicidal intent could be readily inferred from the numerous shots he fired at the victim, wounding him four times (see e.g. People v. Feliz, 273 A.D.2d 59, 708 N.Y.S.2d 873 [2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 934, 721 N.Y.S.2d 610, 744 N.E.2d 146 [2000] ). The evidence does not support a conclusion that defendant merely sought to disable the victim.
The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the People to cross-examine a defense witness as to whether she was the source of certain information contained in defendant's alibi notice, as well as in receiving the alibi notice as an informal judicial admission that was contrary to defendant's position at trial (see People v. White, 228 A.D.2d 209, 644 N.Y.S.2d 16 [1996], lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 1072, 651 N.Y.S.2d 416, 674 N.E.2d 346 [1996] ). Defendant's remaining contentions relating to his alibi defense are unpreserved and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice. Were we to find any error with respect to the alibi defense, either based upon the concerns articulated in People v. Rodriguez, 3 N.Y.3d 462, 787 N.Y.S.2d 697, 821 N.E.2d 122 [2004], or otherwise, we would find such error to be harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence connecting defendant with the commission of this crime.
To the extent the record before us permits us to review defendant's claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, we find this contention unsupported (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998]; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [1984] ).
We have considered and rejected the other claims contained in defendant's pro se supplemental brief.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 15, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)