People v. Le

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]), assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01 [2]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the identification evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 , 19). In any event, the victim’s identification of defendant is legally sufficient to establish that defendant was the perpetrator (see, People v Rivera, 275 AD2d 802 ; see also, People v Lambert, 272 AD2d 413 , lv denied 95 NY2d 867 ). Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the evidence is legally sufficient to establish defendant’s intent to kill. There is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could lead a rational person to the conclusion that, when defendant swung the machete at the victim, defendant did so with an intent to kill (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 , 495). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People need not establish that defendant had a motive to kill the victim (see, People v Hales, 272 AD2d 984 ).

We also reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Although a different finding would not have been unreasonable, it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see, People v Bleakley, supra, at 495 ). The jury was entitled to disbelieve the testimony of defendant’s brother, who attempted to provide defendant with an alibi (see, People v Toledo, 270 AD2d 805 , lv denied 95 NY2d 858 ; see also, People v Burks, 227 AD2d 905 , lv denied 88 NY2d 981 ).

Defendant further contends that errors in Supreme Court’s jury charge require reversal. We disagree. Viewed as a whole, the court’s charge on identification “adequately conveyed to the jury the proper legal standards to be applied” (People v Nelson, 266 AD2d 317 , lv denied 94 NY2d 865 ; see, People v Coleman, 70 NY2d 817 , 819). Nor was the court required to inform the jury that it could render a partial verdict. After a short period of deliberations, the jury asked the court what would happen if they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on one count. A

We further reject the contention of defendant that he was denied a.fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. The alleged misconduct did not deny defendant due process of law (see, People v Hess, 234 AD2d 925 , lv denied 90 NY2d 1011 ; People v Rubin, 101 AD2d 71 , 77, lv denied 63 NY2d 711 ). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that there were errors in the interpreter’s translation (see, People v Smith, 197 AD2d 373 , lv denied 82 NY2d 903 ; People v Hatzipavlou, 175 AD2d 969 , lv denied 79 NY2d 827 ), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J. — Attempted Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.