People v. Zuhlke, 67 A.D.3d 1341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Zuhlke, 67 A.D.3d 1341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Brown (nyappdiv, 2025-07-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Brown
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Whether an accessory shares the intent of a principal actor may be established by circumstantial evidence ( see People v Ozarowski , 38 NY2d 481, 489 [1976]; People v Zuhlke , 67 AD3d 1341, 1341 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 774 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Miller
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Furthermore, the police investigation established that a person other than defendant possessed the fruits of the robbery, particularly the victim's cell phone, and that person's act in fleeing from the police when the phone alarm sounded was indicative of consciousness of guilt ( see People v Davis , 174 AD3d 1538 , 1540 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 980 [2019]; People v Zuhlke , 67 AD3d 1341, 1341 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 774 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Davis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Whether an accessory shares the intent of a principal actor may be established by circumstantial evidence ( see People v Ozarowski , 38 NY2d 481, 489 [1976] ; People v Zuhlke , 67 AD3d 1341, 1341 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 774 [2010]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Spagnuolo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
In any event, defendant's contention lacks merit ( see People v Zuhlke , 67 AD3d 1341, 1341 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 774 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pizarro
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
In addition, defendant was not charged as an accomplice to the codefendants’ possession of their weapons (cf. People v Primakov, 105 AD3d 1397, 1397-1398 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1045 [2013]; People v Zuhlke, 67 AD3d 1341, 1341 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 774 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lloyd
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Defendant’s neighbor testified that he saw defendant shoot the victim twice at close range, another witness heard the shots, the victim implicated defendant as the shooter, ballistics evidence linked the bullets that killed the victim with ammunition seized from defendant’s bedroom, and defendant immediately fled the scene, demonstrating consciousness of guilt (see generally People v Zuhlke, 67 AD3d 1341, 1341 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 774 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lloyd
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Defendant’s neighbor testified that he saw defendant shoot the victim twice at close range, another witness heard the shots, the victim implicated defendant as the shooter, ballistics evidence linked the bullets that killed the victim with ammunition seized from defendant’s bedroom, and defendant immediately fled the scene, demonstrating consciousness of guilt (see generally People v Zuhlke, 67 AD3d 1341, 1341 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 774 [2010]).
The People of the State of New York
v.
Donovan L. Zuhlke
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 13, 2009.
67 A.D.3d 1341
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Stephen R. Sirkin, A.J.), rendered April 5, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [former (2)]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [former (4)]), defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction because the People failed to establish that he acted with the requisite intent for accomplice liability. We reject that contention (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Whether an accessory shares the intent of a principal actor may be established by circumstantial evidence (see generally People v Ozarowski, 38 NY2d 481, 489 [1976]; People v Johnson, 101 AD2d 684 [1984]).

Here, it is undisputed that defendant knew that the other individuals in the vehicle in which he was a passenger planned to use the gun in an unlawful manner. The People presented evidence, including defendant’s sworn statement, from which the jury could reasonably infer that defendant was a participant in the plan, from its inception, to acquire the gun and to locate an individual who would act as the gunman. Contrary to the contention of defendant, evidence of his flight from the scene of the shooting was admissible as circumstantial evidence of his consciousness of guilt (see People v Lendore, 36 AD3d 940 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 947 [2007]).

[*1342] Finally, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Garni, Pine and Gorski, JJ.