| People v Clemmons |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03080 [83 AD3d 859] |
| April 12, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AndreClemmons, Jr., Also Known as Dre, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.),rendered March 17, 2008, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted robbery inthe first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, andmanslaughter in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484,492 [2008]). In any event, 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 toestablish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to viewthe witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt wasnot against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly admitted into evidence aphotograph, taken approximately three days prior to the shooting, showing him holding a gunthat was similar to the weapon used in the crimes at issue. This evidence was admissible toestablish the defendant's identity, and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect(see People v Rivera, 281 AD2d 702, 703 [2001]; People v Brown, 266 AD2d863 [1999]; People v Espinal, 262 AD2d 245 [1999]).
Further, the testimony of a detective that the defendant's fingerprints were already in thesystem, which was not specifically identified as police-related, did not compel the inference thatthe defendant had a past criminal history (see People v Henry, 71 AD3d 1159, 1160 [2010]; People vGarcia, 294 AD2d 515 [2002]; People v Myers, 220 AD2d 272 [1995]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreservedfor appellate review and, in any event, do not require reversal. Covello, J.P., Angiolillo,Dickerson and Roman, JJ., concur.