| People v Weekes |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02598 [71 AD3d 1065] |
| March 23, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Edward C. Weekes, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and JacquelineRosenblum of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Jaeger, J.),rendered August 7, 2007, convicting him of rape in the second degree (four counts), sodomy inthe second degree (four counts), rape in the third degree (four counts), and sodomy in the thirddegree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the indictment was not facially invalid for failure tospecify the dates and times of the charged crimes (see CPL 200.50 [6]). Under thecircumstances, including the age of the victim at the time of the commission of the crimes, therepetitive and clandestine nature of the crimes, and the continuous and long-term nature of theabuse, the one-month intervals contained in each count of the indictment were reasonablyspecific and provided the defendant with adequate notice (see People v Watt, 81 NY2d772, 774 [1993]; People v Keindl, 68 NY2d 410, 419 [1986]; People v Morris,61 NY2d 290, 293-296 [1984]; People v Case, 29 AD3d 706 [2006]; People vCosby, 222 AD2d 690 [1995]; People v Hunt, 148 AD2d 836 [1989]; cf. Peoplev Beauchamp, 74 NY2d 639 [1989]). Moreover, the counts are not duplicitous (seeCPL 200.30 [1]; People v Beauchamp, 74 NY2d at 640; People v Keindl, 68NY2d at 419).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conductan independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied thatthe verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are withoutmerit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Belen, JJ., concur.