Filed Date: 12/17/2002
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The question of immediacy in this case is an issue of fact— much like the question whether the defendant threatened the “immediate use of physical force” to obtain property (see People v Woods, 41 NY2d 279, 282 [1977]), and whether a homicide occurred in “immediate flight” from a felony (see People v Slaughter, 78 NY2d 485, 490 [1991]; People v Gladman, 41 NY2d 123, 129 [1976]). In determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence for a criminal conviction we indulge all reasonable inferences in the People’s favor, mindful that a “jury faced with conflicting evidence may accept some and reject other items of evidence” (see People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428, 437 [1985] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]).
Here, a jury reasonably could have concluded from the testimony of Gavilanes that Postigo used the threat of force to retain the stolen property, and from the testimony of Darge that the confrontation between Gavilanes and Postigo occurred within minutes of the larceny and in the presence of defendant. Further, the jury reasonably could have combined these conclusions and determined that the crime unfolded in a matter of minutes. Even if the gap between the taking and the threat were longer, as defendant insists, the question whether one immediately succeeded the other would remain an issue of
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.