THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. JUSTIN JONES DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1]), arising out of an incident in which he allegedly returned gunfire at an individual who shot and killed a person standing near defendant. We affirm.

Contrary to defendant's contention, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting in evidence certain surveillance video footage and a photographic still image taken from that video footage, both of which purportedly depicted defendant at the scene of the crime on the day in question. “In the authentication context, what matters most is whether the events depicted are as real as the proponent claims them to be” (Matter of M.S. [M.H.], — NY3d —, —, 2026 NY Slip Op 00825, *5 [2026]). “[A]uthenticity is established by proof that the offered evidence is genuine and that there has been no tampering with it” (People v McGee, 49 NY2d 48, 59 [1979], cert denied 446 US 942 [1980]). “With respect to video evidence, ․ a video may be authenticated through (1) testimony of a witness to the recorded events or of an operator or installer or maintainer of the equipment that the videotape accurately represents the subject matter depicted or (2) testimony (expert or lay) establishing that the video truly and accurately represents what was before the camera” (M.S., — NY3d at —, 2026 NY Slip Op 00825, *3 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Patterson, 93 NY2d 80, 84 [1999]). Critically, “[e]vidence establishing chain of custody of the videotape may additionally buttress its authenticity and integrity, and even allow for acceptable inferences of reasonable accuracy and freedom from tampering” (Patterson, 93 NY2d at 84; see People v Oquendo, 152 AD3d 1220, 1221 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 982 [2017]). The decision to admit such evidence rests with the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a lack of foundation for its introduction or a demonstrated abuse of the court's discretion (see Patterson, 93 NY2d at 84; People v Cardoza, 218 AD3d 1291, 1292-1293 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 996 [2023]; see also People v Sumpter, 191 AD3d 1160, 1165 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 968 [2021]).

Here, we conclude that the totality of the evidence supports a finding that the surveillance footage and the photograph were properly authenticated and that any uncertainty whether they accurately depicted the events in question went to the weight of that evidence, rather than its admissibility (see People v Houston, 181 AD3d 477, 478 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1027 [2020]; Oquendo, 152 AD3d at 1221). The surveillance footage and the photograph, i.e., a still taken from the surveillance footage, were authenticated by the testimony of the police department technician who downloaded the video from the corner store that collected the surveillance footage. The technician testified that he arrived at the corner store to obtain the surveillance footage within an hour of the shooting, and that no one else had access to the hard drive containing the footage because the police locked the corner store after ensuring that no one was inside (see generally People v Jones, 208 AD3d 1632, 1632 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 986 [2022]). The technician also testified that it was evident that no changes were made to the surveillance footage because the time stamp progressed normally as the footage played and there were no skips or changes to the footage as it played. Further, although the technician admitted that he was not present in the corner store overnight as the surveillance footage downloaded, he subsequently verified that everything from the hard drive had been completely downloaded and transferred properly (see Sumpter, 191 AD3d at 1165). Indeed, the police sergeant who picked up the downloaded footage the next morning testified that he did not notice any defects or issues with the hard drive at that time. To the extent that the corner store was accessible to a store employee with a key, any minor gap that created in the chain of custody went to the weight of the surveillance footage, not its admissibility (see People v Johnson, 192 AD3d 1612, 1615 [4th Dept 2021]). We note that other video footage admitted in evidence at trial and not challenged on appeal was consistent with the events depicted in the challenged footage and therefore “supported the inference that the footage at issue depicted the relevant [events]” (People v Colon, 243 AD3d 1340, 1342 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 45 NY3d 936 [2026] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Houston, 181 AD3d at 478).

Contrary to the assertion in defendant's reply brief, we note that the facts in this case are distinguishable from those in M.S., in which the Court of Appeals concluded that video footage should not have been admitted in evidence because it was not properly authenticated. There, the video footage in question was not obtained by law enforcement until 21/2 years after it was recorded, whereas here the police obtained access to the surveillance footage within an hour of the shooting (see M.S., — NY3d at —, 2026 NY Slip Op 00825, *4). Moreover, there was testimony here about the process by which the surveillance footage was obtained, and the person who recovered the evidence testified that the surveillance footage was unaltered (cf. id.; People v Patterson, 242 AD2d 740, 741 [2d Dept 1997], revd 93 NY2d 80 [1999]).

Defendant further contends that, without the challenged surveillance footage and photograph, the evidence is legally insufficient to establish his identity as a person who unlawfully possessed a firearm on the day in question. We note that, in making that argument, defendant seemingly concedes in his brief that, if the challenged evidence was properly admitted, then the evidence at trial is sufficient to support the conviction. Nevertheless, to the extent defendant contends that the evidence at trial is legally insufficient, even if the challenged evidence was properly admitted, we conclude that “there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational [factfinder] could have found the elements of the crime[s] proved beyond a reasonable doubt” (People v Robbs, 233 AD3d 1456, 1457 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 1058 [2025] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]; People v Jordan, 181 AD3d 1248, 1249 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1067 [2020]). Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

Finally, we reject defendant's contention that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge Penal Law §§ 265.02 and 265.03 as unconstitutional in light of the holding in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US 1 [2022]). Such a challenge would have had little or no chance of success (see People v Thomas, 176 AD3d 1639, 1641 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 1082 [2019]; People v Burgess, 159 AD3d 1384, 1385 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1115 [2018]; see generally People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]) inasmuch as the “decision in Bruen had no impact on the constitutionality of New York State's criminal possession of a weapon statutes” (People v Mancuso, 225 AD3d 1151, 1153 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 964 [2025], cert denied — US — [2026] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Lindsey, — AD3d —, —, 2026 NY Slip Op 02763, *1 [4th Dept 2026]; see generally People v Johnson, — NY3d —, —, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528, *6 [2025, Cannataro, J., concurring]).

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court