People v. Hirsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hirsch

280 A.D.2d 612, 720 N.Y.S.2d 535, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1630

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 20, 2001·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the [613] defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (LaPera, J.), rendered June 4, 1999, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence established that a burglar took the victims’ jewelry, cash, and other personal belongings after forcibly entering their house by breaking the glass side door. A fingerprint expert testified that a latent fingerprint lifted from the broken glass matched that of the defendant’s left index finger. Fingerprint evidence, although circumstantial in nature, is sufficient proof if it leads to a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence (see, People v Murray, 168 AD2d 573; People v Sparacino, 150 AD2d 814; People v Talley, 110 AD2d 792). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, we find that the jury reasonably concluded that the defendant’s guilt was proven to a moral certainty (see, People v Betancourt, 68 NY2d 707). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, Acting P. J., Goldstein, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal by the [613] defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (LaPera, J.), rendered June 4, 1999, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence established that a burglar took the victims’ jewelry, cash, and other personal belongings after forcibly entering their house by breaking the glass side door. A fingerprint expert testified that a latent fingerprint lifted from the broken glass matched that of the defendant’s left index finger. Fingerprint evidence, although circumstantial in nature, is sufficient proof if it leads to a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence (see, People v Murray, 168 AD2d 573; People v Sparacino, 150 AD2d 814; People v Talley, 110 AD2d 792). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, we find that the jury reasonably concluded that the defendant’s guilt was proven to a moral certainty (see, People v Betancourt, 68 NY2d 707). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, Acting P. J., Goldstein, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

People v. Hirsch, 280 A.D.2d 612, 720 N.Y.S.2d 535, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

280 A.D.2d 612 (People v. Hirsch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related