| People v Norris |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05930 [98 AD3d 586] |
| August 8, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Daquan Norris, Appellant. |
—[*1] Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and AnneGrady of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Collini,J.), rendered May 7, 2008, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence. By decision and order dated November 3, 2010, this Court remitted thematter to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, to hear and report on the defendant's challengeto the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges against black venirepersons and held theappeal in abeyance in the interim (seePeople v Norris, 78 AD3d 736 [2010]). The Supreme Court, Richmond County, hasnow filed its report.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor offered race-neutral explanations forexercising peremptory challenges to venirepersons (see Purkett v Elem, 514 US 765,767-768 [1995]). The burden then shifted to the defendant to demonstrate that the profferedexplanations were a pretext for discrimination, and he failed to carry that burden (see Peoplev Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 104 [1995]; People v Celestine, 243 AD2d 485, 486 [1997]).The Supreme Court's determination that the challenges were not pretextual turned largely on itsassessment of the prosecutor's credibility and is entitled to great deference on appeal (seePeople v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350, 356 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]; People v Samms, 83 AD3d 1099[2011]). Since the Supreme Court's determination is supported by the record, it will not bedisturbed (see People v Gray, 79AD3d 1067 [2010]; People vMiles, 55 AD3d 307, [*2]308 [2008]; People v Boston, 52 AD3d 728,729 [2008]; People v Hall, 292 AD2d 166 [2002]).
The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction ofmurder in the second degree because the People failed to prove the element of intent to kill.Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes,60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonabledoubt that the defendant possessed the intent to kill the decedent (see Penal Law §125.25 [1]; People v Ortiz, 46AD3d 580 [2007]; People v Pabellon, 198 AD2d 87, 88 [1993]; People vAngel, 185 AD2d 356, 358 [1992]; People v Reyes, 108 AD2d 934 [1985]).
The defendant also contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence becausethe People failed to prove the element of intent to kill and because the testimony of a prosecutionwitness was not credible. 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 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]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was notagainst the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Chambers andAustin, JJ., concur.