| People v Hayes |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04371 [51 AD3d 688] |
| May 6, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v TravisHayes, Appellant. |
—[*1] Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Daniel M. Reback of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County(Rosenwasser, J.), rendered November 7, 2003, convicting him of manslaughter in the firstdegree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court correctly declined to provide the jury with a charge regarding the temporary,innocent, and lawful possession of a weapon, as there was no reasonable view of the evidencethat the defendant had a legal excuse for possessing the weapon and that the weapon had notbeen used in a dangerous manner (see People v Banks, 76 NY2d 799, 801 [1990];People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [1989]; People v Williams, 50 NY2d 1043,1044-1045 [1980]; People v Caldarola,45 AD3d 600, 600-601 [2007]; People v Medina, 237 AD2d 382, 382-383[1997]).
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel because trial counselwithdrew the defense request for a justification charge. Considering the record in the light mostfavorable to the defendant, there was no reasonable view of the evidence supporting such acharge (see People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816 [1988]; People v Harris, 48 AD3d 830 [2008]; People v Ojar, 38 AD3d 684, 685[2007]; People v Pichardo, 168 AD2d 577, 578 [1990]; People v Douglas, 160AD2d 1015 [1990]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes,60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guiltbeyond [*2]a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues ofcredibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses,and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633, 644-645 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions either are without merit or do not warrant reversal.Fisher, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Carni, JJ., concur.