

People v Jaggarnauth (2018 NY Slip Op 02171)





People v Jaggarnauth


2018 NY Slip Op 02171


Decided on March 28, 2018


Appellate Division, Second Department


Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.


This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.



Decided on March 28, 2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
SHERI S. ROMAN
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.


2014-07247
 (Ind. No. 1561/12)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vShane Jaggarnauth, appellant.


Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gregory Lasak, J.), rendered July 15, 2014, convicting him of murder in the first degree (two counts), murder in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to cause the death of his parents. The defendant's intent can be inferred from his conduct and the surrounding circumstances (see People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301; People v Heron, 130 AD3d 754, 754; People v Edwards, 120 AD3d 1435, 1435; People v Bryant, 39 AD3d 768, 769; see also People v Ficarrota, 91 NY2d 244, 250). Accordingly, there was legally sufficient evidence to support the defendant's convictions of murder in the first and second degrees.
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on the counts of murder in the first and second degrees was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, DUFFY and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court


