AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. KENNETH HIRSCH, APPELLANT. (Ind. No. 3251/98)

DECISION ORDER

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 A.D.2d 573; People v. Sparacino, 150 A.D.2d 814; People v. Talley, 110 A.D.2d 792). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 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 N.Y.2d 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).

The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. HIRSCH
(Feb 20, 2001)