People v Whitney
2012 NY Slip Op 03865 [95 AD3d 1147]
May 15, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 27, 2012


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Edward Whitney, Appellant.

[*1]Jason M. Bernheimer, Katonah, N.Y., for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Lois Cullen Valerio and RichardLongworth Hecht of counsel; Frank Marallo on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Wetzel, J.), rendered May 7, 2010, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in thethird degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to support thedefendant's conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Additionally, infulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence(see CPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied thatthe verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).

The defendant's challenge to certain supplemental jury instructions is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hyland, 45 AD3d 781 [2007]; People v Lewis,247 AD2d 555 [1998]). In any event, the Supreme Court responded meaningfully to the jury'sinquiries (see People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 131 [1984]; People v Malloy,55 NY2d 296, 301-303 [1982], cert denied 459 US 847 [1982]; People v Hayes, 48 AD3d 831[2008]), and its response, which was in complete accord with defense counsel's suggestions, didnot prejudice the defendant. Skelos, J.P., Florio, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.