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. GORDIE W. WALKER, JR., DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25[2] ) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (§ 165.40), defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction. Defendant's contention is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as he failed to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal after presenting evidence (see People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 61, rearg. denied 97 N.Y.2d 678). In any event, that contention is without merit (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). The record establishes that defendant attended a party at the victim's apartment, that he was the last person to leave the party, and that he was alone in the apartment in the hours before the victim discovered that his property had been stolen. Further, the day after the party, defendant sold the property stolen from the victim. We thus conclude that “[d]efendant's recent and exclusive possession of the property that constituted the fruits of the burglary, and the absence of credible evidence that the crime was committed by someone else, justified the inference that defendant committed the burglary” and knowingly possessed stolen property (People v. Marshall, 198 A.D.2d 907, 907, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 898; see People v. Jackson, 66 AD3d 1415, 1416; People v. Scurlock, 33 AD3d 366, 366, lv denied 7 NY3d 928). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we likewise conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495). We note that “[r]esolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury” (People v. Witherspoon, 66 AD3d 1456, 1457, lv denied 13 NY3d 942 [internal quotation marks omitted] ), and we see no reason to disturb the jury's resolution of those issues in this case.
Contrary to the contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief, we conclude that County Court properly granted the People's motion to amend the indictment to conform to the proof at trial inasmuch as “[t]he minor temporal correction did not change the theory of the prosecution or cause any prejudice to ․ defendant” (People v. Hankins, 265 A.D.2d 572, 572, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 880; see CPL 200.70[1]; People v. Lane, 47 AD3d 1125, 1127, lv denied 10 NY3d 866; People v. Grasso, 237 A.D.2d 741, 742, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1035).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: KA 13–01707
Decided: February 13, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)