| People v Bell |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 00111 [80 AD3d 891] |
| January 13, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ralph A. Bell,Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Miriam C. Healy of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lawliss, J.), rendered July 6,2009 in Clinton County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of endangering thewelfare of a child.
Defendant and his girlfriend are the parents of two children (born in 2006 and 2008). In thepresence of their children, they had a heated verbal disagreement in January 2009 that allegedlyescalated into a physical altercation. As a result, defendant was charged with threemisdemeanors. Following a jury trial, he was found guilty of one count of endangering thewelfare of a child. Supreme Court sentenced him to four months in jail and imposed a three-yearorder of protection. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Defendant contends that the jury's verdict was not supported by legally sufficientevidence and was against the weight of the evidence. "Legally sufficient evidence is presentwhen the proof, viewed most favorably to the People, establishes 'any valid line of reasoning andpermissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the juryon the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burdenrequirements for every element of the crime charged' " (People v Bynum, 68 AD3d 1348, 1349 [2009], lv denied 14NY3d 798 [2010], quoting People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Here, thegirlfriend testified that, after defendant called her several profane and highly degrading names inthe presence of the children, he put his hands around her neck and [*2]pushed her onto a couch. She stated that she bit defendant's fingerto stop him from choking her. During this time, the older child attempted to get between the twoadults and was telling them to stop. This evidence of verbal and physical domestic violence in theimmediate presence of a child who became physically involved in attempting to stop it waslegally sufficient to establish endangering the welfare of a child (see People v Johnson,95 NY2d 368, 372-373 [2000]).
Turning to the weight of the evidence argument, a different verdict would not have beenunreasonable in light of defendant's testimony denying key aspects of the girlfriend's version ofevents. Accordingly, we must "weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and therelative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony and thendetermine whether the jury was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonabledoubt" (People v Hicks, 55 AD3d1138, 1140 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 758 [2009] [internal quotation marks andcitations omitted]). There were clearly significant differences in the accounts that created a starkcredibility issue, and we typically "accord[ ] great deference to the jury's opportunity to view thewitnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor" (People v Beauharnois, 64 AD3d 996, 999 [2009], lv denied13 NY3d 834 [2009] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]). Havingreviewed and weighed the evidence in the record, we are unpersuaded to disregard the jury'scredibility determination and we find the verdict supported by the weight of the evidence.
Lastly, defendant argues that the sentence was harsh and excessive. We cannot agree.Defendant had several prior misdemeanor convictions and he received less than the maximumpermissible sentence. The protective order does not preclude defendant from contact with hisgirlfriend or children, but directs that he refrain from, among other things, assaulting them andfrom acts creating an unreasonable risk to the children's health, safety and welfare. SupremeCourt did not abuse its discretion and there are no extraordinary circumstances warranting areduction of the sentence (see People vEngland, 48 AD3d 838, 838 [2008]).
Spain, J.P., Kavanagh, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.