*1 Defendant appeals from the judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Margaret L. Clancy, J.), rendered March 20, 2015, convicting him, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and imposing sentence.*2
MARCH KAHN, J.Defendant Alexis Sanchez was convicted, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, arising out of the shooting death of Stephen Mari. Defendant, who did not testify, put forth a justification defense based on a videotaped statement that he gave to the police giving his version of the shooting, which the People introduced into evidence to definitively place the defendant at the scene.On this appeal, we are asked to decide whether the jury’s verdict convicting defendant of murder in the second degree was against the weight of the evidence.I. Standards of ReviewWeight of the evidence review involves a two-step approach. (People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643 [2006]). First, the Court must determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, an acquittal would not have been unreasonable (id.; People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). If so, then the appellate court must weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony (People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]; Romero, 7 NY3d at 643; Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). That step is performed by weighing the evidence against the elements as charged to the jury (Danielson, 9 NY3d at 349). The evidence must be of such weight and credibility as to convince the Court that the jury’s finding of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was justified (People v. Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]).The relationship between the role of the jury in the finding of facts and the role of the intermediate appellate court in review of the facts has been stated as follows:“Empowered with this unique factual review, intermediate appellate courts have been careful not to substitute themselves for the jury. Great deference is accorded to the fact-finder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor. Without question the differences between what the jury does and what the appellate court does in weighing evidence are delicately nuanced, but differences there are” (Romero, 7 NY3d at 644, quoting Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).This Court has held that reversal of a judgment of conviction on weight of the evidence review is not warranted in the absence of record evidence indicating “that the jury’s findings of credibility
