| People v Goddard |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03144 [72 AD3d 839] |
| April 13, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Andrew Goddard, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Linda Breen ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg,J.), rendered September 6, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the thirddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention as to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved forappellate review, as he failed to raise before the trial court the arguments he now raises on appeal(see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d484, 492-493 [2008]; People vKearney, 25 AD3d 622 [2006]; People v Butler, 265 AD2d 487 [1999]). In anyevent, this contention is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to theprosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we are satisfied that it was legallysufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon ourindependent review of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdictof guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly marshaled the evidenceduring its charge on circumstantial evidence is without merit. The Supreme Court is not required,during its charge, to explain all the contentions of the parties, or outline all the inconsistencies inthe evidence (see CPL 300.10 [2]; People v Campbell, 68 AD3d 890 [2009]; People v Leach, 38 AD3d 917[2007]; People v Chambers, 18AD3d 571 [2005]; People v Snyder, 294 AD2d 381 [2002]). A limited discussion ofthe facts in a circumstantial evidence charge does not constitute unfair marshaling of theevidence (see People v Croskery, 265 AD2d 846 [1999]). Furthermore, the SupremeCourt instructed the jury that it was not reciting all of the circumstantial evidence, and wasexpressing no opinion as to whether any facts had been proved. It instructed the jury that the jurywas to determine what circumstantial facts had been proven (see People v Desordi, 238AD2d 738 [1997]). The Supreme Court did not place undue emphasis on the People'scontentions (see People v Simpson, 270 AD2d 507 [2000]). Viewed as a whole, theSupreme Court fairly instructed the jury on the correct principles of law to be applied to this case(see People v Leach, 38 AD3d917 [2007]; People v Snyder, 294 AD2d 381 [2002]).[*2]
The defendant's contention that he received ineffectiveassistance of counsel is without merit. Counsel was aware that an insanity defense was unlikelyto be successful, as the most recent psychiatric reports indicated that psychiatrists could notmake a finding that the defendant would not be criminally responsible for his behavior. Therecan be no deprivation of effective assistance of counsel arising from counsel's failure to make anargument that has little or no chance of success (see People v DeHaney, 66 AD3d 1040 [2009]; People v Carter, 44 AD3d 677[2007]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Byers, 254 AD2d 494 [1998];People v Ericsen, 186 AD2d 219 [1992]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contention does not require reversal. Skelos, J.P., Santucci,Angiolillo and Chambers, JJ., concur.