Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael Calabria, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2004-06-08
Citations: 3 N.Y.3d 80
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Calabria, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 80–87

Head Matter:
[816 NE2d 1257, 783 NYS2d 321]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Calabria, Appellant.
Argued May 6, 2004;
decided June 8, 2004
POINTS OF COUNSEL
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York City, for appellant.
The People failed, as a matter of law, to establish appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, because the sole eyewitness’s identification of him, based on a “quick glance” or “glimpse” of an armed assailant of whom she could give only a vague description inconsistent with appellant, was patently unreliable. (People v Reed, 40 NY2d 204; People v Santos, 38 NY2d 173; People v Ledwon, 153 NY 10; People v Foster, 64 NY2d 1144; People v Stewart, 40 NY2d 692; People v Logue, 35 NY2d 658; People v Sickles, 35 NY2d 792; People v Abelson, 309 NY 643; People v Acerra, 282 NY 628; People v Jackson, 65 NY2d 265.)
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Camille O’Hara Gillespie and Leonard Joblove of counsel), for respondent.
Defendant’s claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his identity as the person who robbed the victim and burglarized the International Baptist Church is partly unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law. In any event, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v Arroyo, 54 NY2d 567, 456 US 979; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620; Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307; People v Ledwon, 153 NY 10; People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 469 US 932; People v Gruttola, 43 NY2d 116; People v Concepcion, 38 NY2d 211; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858.)

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Ciparick, J.
After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count of robbery in the first degree and one count of burglary in the second degree. The key issue at trial was the identification of defendant as the perpetrator. There was one eyewitness, the victim, who positively identified defendant both at a lineup and in court. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction based upon the eyewitness identification.
"The standard for reviewing the legal sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether 'after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt' " (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983], quoting Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307, 319 [1979]). We have previously recognized, that the testimony of one witness can be enough to support a conviction, noting that it is typically the province of the jury to determine a witness's credibility (see People v Arroyo, 54 NY2d 567, 578 [1982]).
Indeed, although a conviction may not stand merely because "some evidence" exists "to sustain the charge," whether guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt is a jury issue "in most cases, where there is a conflict as to the facts, or the proof is open to opposing inferences" (People v Ledwon, 153 NY 10, 17, 18 [1897]). Nevertheless, this Court may in rare instances reverse a conviction on the ground that the evidence failed as a matter of law to establish guilt based on an eyewitness identification beyond a reasonable doubt, but only when "hopeless contradictions" by the sole prosecution witness make his or her testimony incredible or unreliable as a matter of law (People v Foster, 64 NY2d 1144, 1147 [1985] [citation omitted]). That in no way happened here.
Incredibility as a matter of law may result "[w]hen all of the evidence of guilt comes from a single prosecution witness who gives irreconcilable testimony pointing both to guilt and innocence," because in that event "the jury is left without basis, other than impermissible speculation, for its determination of either" (People v Jackson, 65 NY2d 265, 272 [1985] [citation omitted]; see also People v Fratello, 92 NY2d 565, 573 [1998]). Thus in Ledwon, we determined that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that the defendants had committed murder when the 12-year-old eyewitness testified, in turn, that he had witnessed the deceased commit suicide; that he had witnessed the defendants kill the deceased; and that he had witnessed the deceased commit suicide after all. In those circumstances, there was simply no way—based on the evidence, as opposed to on rampant speculation—that the jury could rationally determine beyond a reasonable doubt that one of the contradictory accounts was true and the other, false.
Here, by contrast, the victim never wavered in her testimony. She identified defendant on two occasions as the man who robbed her and was certain about the identification, stating that she "got a good look" and "absolutely" saw the perpetrator long enough to remember what he looked like. The jury reasonably concluded that the victim's testimony was both credible and reliable. In addition, there was evidence adduced that, when brought to the precinct to await the lineup, defendant asked, "Did she really pick me out?" Although defendant claimed that he had heard the police mention that the complainant was a woman, the police denied that they had ever told this to defendant or mentioned it in his presence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we must, it was rational for the jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the crimes charged.
Although the dissent purports to determine, as a matter of law, that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the verdict—an inquiry well within our province—it is apparent that the concerns of our dissenting colleagues in fact reflect their belief that the jury got it wrong. But we are a court of law, with no power of factual review. Although the Appellate Division is empowered to reverse a conviction because, in its view, the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495-496 [1987]), we are not (see People v Leonti, 18 NY2d 384, 390 [1966]; People v Eisenberg, 22 NY2d 99, 101 [1968]; Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals § 135, at 773 [3d ed]). Here, the eyewitness, a religious school teacher, testified under oath—without contradiction—that she was able to see the perpetrator's face, albeit briefly, and that she was certain that defendant was the man who had robbed her at gunpoint. Although the dissent doubts her credibility, 12 jurors did not. Since the jury's determination was rational, its verdict may not be disturbed.
We note that, although defendant sought to raise the issue on appeal, he did not attempt at trial to introduce expert testimony regarding certain psychological theories affecting the reliability of eyewitness identification. Had defendant offered such proof, the trial court in its discretion could have determined whether it would have been helpful to the jury in assessing the reliability of the victim's identification testimony (see People v Lee, 96 NY2d 157, 162 [2001]).
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
. Our review is necessarily limited to the evidence presented to the jury at the second trial. As such, neither facts presented at nor issues relevant to the first trial, such as the alibi defense or the prosecutorial misconduct, nor the inadmissible results of lie detector tests, may be considered by this Court, as urged by the dissent.
. Although the dissent states that the victim originally described defendant as a man "of slight build" (dissenting op at 85), the victim initially described defendant as a 25-year-old white male with black hair, 5 feet, 10 inches tall. She later expanded the description to reflect that defendant was of thin-to-medium build with no facial hair.