The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Moreover, we conclude that the evidence was overwhelming. In addition to reliable identification testimony and evidence of unique modus operandi, DNA testing established that a victim's blood was found on defendant's sneakers.
Defendant's cross-examination of a detective suggesting that defendant had an innocent reason for fleeing when approached by the police, as well as his recross-examination of the detective about whether he had knowledge of defendant's thoughts at the time of his arrest, opened the door to the admission of defendant's statement that he ran from the police because he was on parole (see, People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.