| People v Morales |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08780 [89 AD3d 1111] |
| November 29, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v ElenoMorales, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marion M. Tang of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.),rendered December 10, 2008, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of thedefendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress statements made to and in the presence of lawenforcement officers.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly concluded that the defendant'sstatements were voluntary, and that the defendant "spoke with genuine spontaneity 'and not [as] theresult of inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescence, no matter how subtly employed' "(People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476, 479 [1982], quoting People v Maerling, 46 NY2d289, 302-303 [1978]; see People vBajana, 82 AD3d 1111 [2011]; People v Tyrell, 67 AD3d 827, 828 [2009]; People v Ayers, 43 AD3d 1071,1071-1072 [2007]). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied those branches of the defendant'somnibus motion which were to suppress statements made to and in the presence of law enforcementofficers.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of theevidence (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 493 [2008]). In any event, viewingthe evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620[1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond areasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of theweight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord greatdeference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor(see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004];People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
While the County Court erred in admitting into evidence a prior consistent statement of thePeople's witness, that error was harmless as there was overwhelming evidence of the [*2]defendant's guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed tothe defendant's conviction (see People v Seit, 86 NY2d 92, 97 [1995]; People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]; People v Evans, 16 AD3d 517 [2005]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.