Case ID: ad3d_76/html/0916-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Livingston Clark, Appellant.
    [908 NYS2d 40]
   Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered February 11, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidencé (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. The element of identity was established by a compelling chain of circumstantial evidence. The location where defendant left his palm print strongly indicated that he left it at the time of the burglary, rather than on another occasion (see e.g. People v Texeira, 32 AD3d 756 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 904 [2006]). Additional evidence supported the conviction, including defendant’s suspicious behavior at the scene several days before the crime, and his statements to the police that both evinced a consciousness of guilt and circumstantially linked him to the crime. Furthermore, there was ample evidence to establish defendant’s unlawful entry into a building with intent to commit a crime.

The court’s Sandoval ruling, which permitted only a very limited inquiry into defendant’s extensive criminal background, balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]). Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Andrias, Acosta, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.