| People v Cartwright |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02801 [61 AD3d 695] |
| April 7, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v TroyCartwright, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Lois Cullen Valerio, RichardLongworth Hecht, and Anthony J. Servino of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(DiBella, J.), rendered January 5, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree (twocounts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial,after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppressphysical evidence and statements he made to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the entirely circumstantial evidence here in the light most favorable to theprosecution, and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from it (seePeople v Lewis, 64 NY2d 1111, 1112 [1985]; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620[1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond areasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review ofthe weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946[2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here,we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The County Court properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion whichwere to suppress statements he made to a detective on July 28, 2005 and to suppress as the fruitof those [*2]statements DNA evidence derived from a buccalswab taken from the defendant with his consent in the course of the interrogation. The evidenceat the pretrial suppression hearing, which included an audiotape of the exchange between thedetective and the defendant, established that the defendant was advised of his Mirandarights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) and signed a card containing awaiver of his rights. Moreover, to the extent that the defendant did not give an explicit oralwaiver of his rights, the court correctly found an implicit waiver from uncontradicted evidencethat the defendant understood his rights and willingly proceeded to answer the detective'squestions during interrogation (see People v Sirno, 76 NY2d 967, 968 [1990]; People v Gill, 20 AD3d 434[2005]; People v Hastings, 282 AD2d 545, 546 [2001]).
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the court did not improvidently exercise itsdiscretion in admitting into evidence a videotape of the crime scene and certain photographsdepicting the decedent's body at the scene of the homicide and at her autopsy. Under the facts ofthis case, the videotape and the photographs were probative in that they tended to establish theelements of the murder charges and to corroborate the witnesses' testimony (see People v Chandler, 51 AD3d941, 942 [2008]), and were not admitted for the sole purpose of arousing the emotions of thejury or of prejudicing the defendant (see People v Wood, 79 NY2d 958, 960 [1992];People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 369 [1973]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Dillon, Belen andChambers, JJ., concur.