Opinion ID: 715778
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidentiary Sufficiency with Regard to Bolden Murder

Text: 52 Jamison argues that the evidence relied upon to demonstrate his intent to kill Bolden was insufficient to support his murder conviction under N.Y.Penal Law §§ 125.25, 105.15, 20.00. Jamison must carry a heavy burden in order to prevail on this claim. See United States v. Martinez, 54 F.3d 1040, 1042 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 545, 133 L.Ed.2d 448 (1995). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and draw all permissible inferences in its favor. Id. Where, as here, the issue is one of intent, the question is whether the inferences [in favor of the government] are sufficiently supported to permit a rational juror to find that the element, like all elements, is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 1043. 53 The government's evidence of Jamison's intent was sufficient. The evidence showed that: (1) the Bolden murder was preceded by a fight between the intended victim 8 and Jamison, in which Jamison was beaten up, suggesting a motive; (2) Jamison was the driver in the drive-by shooting that killed Bolden, allowing the jury to infer that Jamison acted with intent since driving a vehicle under such circumstances requires certain advance planning and purposive technical finesse; (3) Jamison's driver's side window was down shortly after the murder, suggesting that he may have been the triggerman; (4) he had purchased an Uzi the week before, and a similar weapon had been used in the murder; and (5) he had served as a hit man for the L.A. Boys in the past. 54 While the government's case was not air-tight, with all permissible inferences drawn in its favor, the evidence was sufficient to support Jamison's conviction. 55