People v. Hirsch

280 A.D.2d 612, 720 N.Y.S.2d 535, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1630
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 20, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 612 (People v. Hirsch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
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).

Opinion

—Appeal by the [613]*613defendant 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

Related

People v. Guzman
116 A.D.3d 790 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re Richard M.
89 A.D.3d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Josey
82 A.D.3d 1009 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Rose
73 A.D.3d 1091 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Balaz
43 A.D.3d 949 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Moon
11 A.D.3d 486 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Morgan
9 A.D.3d 375 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Urquidez
5 A.D.3d 800 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Snell
296 A.D.2d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Martin
295 A.D.2d 997 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
280 A.D.2d 612, 720 N.Y.S.2d 535, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hirsch-nyappdiv-2001.