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, etc., respondent, v. Philip CALDAROLA, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered April 5, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and tampering with physical evidence, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the defense of temporary innocent possession is only partially preserved for appellate review since defense counsel requested the charge solely with respect to the count of the indictment charging the defendant with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 18-19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919; People v. Smith, 23 A.D.3d 416, 417, 804 N.Y.S.2d 774; People v. Cruz, 13 A.D.3d 390, 785 N.Y.S.2d 345). In any event, viewing the testimony in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v. Steele, 26 N.Y.2d 526, 529, 311 N.Y.S.2d 889, 260 N.E.2d 527), there was no reasonable view of the evidence upon which the jury could have found that the defendant's possession was innocent. Thus, the charge was not warranted (see People v. Banks, 76 N.Y.2d 799, 800, 559 N.Y.S.2d 959, 559 N.E.2d 653; People v. Williams, 50 N.Y.2d 1043, 1044-1045, 431 N.Y.S.2d 698, 409 N.E.2d 1372; People v. Johnson, 30 A.D.3d 439, 817 N.Y.S.2d 340; People v. Cruz, 13 A.D.3d 390, 785 N.Y.S.2d 345; People v. Silas, 308 A.D.2d 465, 466, 764 N.Y.S.2d 193; People v. Reality Way, 304 A.D.2d 844, 844-845, 757 N.Y.S.2d 880; People v. Hawkins, 258 A.D.2d 472, 685 N.Y.S.2d 253; People v. Medina, 237 A.D.2d 382, 382-383, 655 N.Y.S.2d 430).
As relevant here, a person is guilty of the crime of tampering with physical evidence when:
“Believing that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction, or by employing force, intimidation or deception against any person.”
(Penal Law § 215.40[2] [emphasis added] ). Rather than use the disjunctive word “or” emphasized above, the indictment in this case used the word “and.” The defendant contends that the indictment thus required the People to prove both an act of concealment, alteration, or destruction, and the use of force, intimidation, or deception. The trial court charged the jury according to the statute, rather than the indictment. Based on the foregoing, the defendant contends that he was denied due process of law because the court's instruction, in effect, constructively amended the indictment and reduced the quantum of proof the People had to offer in order to obtain a conviction on this count. As the defendant failed to object to the court's charge, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v. Hudson, 300 A.D.2d 508, 750 N.Y.S.2d 892; People v. Harvey, 212 A.D.2d 730, 622 N.Y.S.2d 809). In any event, the contention is without merit, as the indictment charged more than the People were required to prove under the statute (see Penal Law § 215.40[2] ), and the trial court's charge did not usurp the grand jury's powers or change the theory of the prosecution (see People v. Charles, 61 N.Y.2d 321, 326-328, 473 N.Y.S.2d 941, 462 N.E.2d 118; People v. Clougher, 246 N.Y. 106, 112, 158 N.E. 38; People v. Nicholas, 35 A.D.2d 18, 20, 312 N.Y.S.2d 645).
The defendant's contention that the People deprived him of a fair trial by advancing the allegedly unsupported theory that he concealed a gun in his jacket pocket during the shooting is without merit, as this theory was supported by the evidence adduced at trial, and the prosecutor's arguments on summation constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v. Gillespie, 36 A.D.3d 626, 627, 831 N.Y.S.2d 83; People v. Smith, 21 A.D.3d 386, 799 N.Y.S.2d 569; People v. Martinez, 5 A.D.3d 278, 774 N.Y.S.2d 680).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644-645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902; People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5] ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d at 644-645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
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.
Decided: November 07, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)