| People v Braham |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00221 [91 AD3d 666] |
| Jnury 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v LloydBraham, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (William C. Milaccio, Lois CullenValerio, and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Hubert,J.), rendered July 25, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the CountyCourt, Westchester County, for a new trial.
The defendant contends that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt by legally sufficientevidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight ofthe evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, andobserve demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], cert denied 542 US946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here,we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
Nonetheless, the judgment of conviction must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.The County Court erred in allowing the defendant's jury to hear the defense of codefendantWarren Davis. Prior to trial, the County Court granted a partial severance calling for thedefendant and Davis to be tried jointly but before two separate juries. During the People's case,the County Court adhered to its decision and excluded the defendant's jury from portions of thetestimony relating to Davis's statements to law enforcement. However, the County Courtimproperly allowed the defendant's jury to hear the codefendant Davis's case at trial. Davis'scounsel took an aggressive adversarial stance against the defendant and elicited damagingevidence against him, creating the sort of compelling prejudice that could have been avoided bythe grant of the requested total severance (see People v Cardwell, 78 NY2d 996 [1991];People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174 [1989]; People v Hikel, 180 AD2d 820[1992]).[*2]
In light of our determination, we need not reach thedefendant's remaining contentions. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.