On both occasions, when the detectives and defendant arrived in Philadelphia, Rivera was not at the expected location. Following each failed attempt to locate Rivera, defendant admitted to the police that she had thwarted their effort to apprehend him by warning Rivera in advance, after experiencing a change of heart. The officers further testified that defendant agreed to go with the detectives to locate Rivera a third time but, this time, the detectives went to Philadelphia without defendant'sknowledge prior to the agreed upon date and were successful in surprising Rivera, finding him seated in his parked vehicle near the apartment building where he reportedly was staying. On that occasion, Rivera threatened the officers with a gun, attempted to run them down and then fled, escaping arrest. The police later apprehended him on an FBI fugitive warrant.
Defendant raises two arguments on appeal.
First, we address defendant's contention that, as a matter of law, there is insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. We agree with defendant's contention that the People must prove that the underlying class A felony was committed. Defendant's eye witness description of the murder is, therefore, evidence against her of both the underlying felony and defendant's subjective knowledge and belief that Rivera had committed murder. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the majority at the Appellate Division appropriately concluded that a rational trier of fact could determine that every element of the offense had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Alternatively, defendant argues that the People failed to furnish corroboration under CPL 60.50 of defendant's statement that a class A felony had occurred.