People v. Lilly

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there was both direct and circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt. The defendant’s admission was direct evidence of guilt (see, People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879). The circumstantial evidence corroborated the admission by placing the defendant at the scene and confirming that the cause of the fire was consistent with the defendant’s statement. Upon the exercise of our…