| People v Jackson |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08153 [100 AD3d 1018] |
| November 28, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v H.Drew Jackson, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Lauren Tan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Crecca, J.),rendered January 29, 2009, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal contemptin the first 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 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt of assault in the second degree and criminal contempt in the first degree beyonda reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent reviewof the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we are satisfied that theverdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that the testimony of the People's expert concerning bloodstainpattern analysis impermissibly bolstered the testimony of the complaining witnesses isunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and, in any event, is withoutmerit (see generally People vOcampo, 52 AD3d 741, 742 [2008]). The defendant's contention that expert testimonyregarding bloodstain pattern analysis was improper because it addressed matters which were notbeyond the ken of the jury is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and,in any event, is without merit (seePeople v Pike, 63 AD3d 1692, 1694 [2009]; People v Delosh, 2 AD3d 1047, 1049 [2003]; People vWhitaker, 289 AD2d 84 [2001]; People v Barnes, 267 AD2d 1020, 1021 [1999]).The defendant's contention that the expert improperly testified as to matters and conclusionswhich were not contained in his report is without merit (see CPL 240.20 [1] [c]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor properly questioned him during hiscross-examination regarding alleged prior bad acts since the defendant opened the door to thisline of questioning during his direct examination (see e.g. People v Pinto, 56 AD3d 494, 495 [2008]; People vRios, 166 AD2d 616, 618 [1990]).
The defendant's challenges to various remarks made by the prosecutor during her [*2]summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]). In any event, the challenged remarks were fair response to arguments and issuesraised on summation by the defense, and fair comment on the evidence (see People vAshwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]). Angiolillo, J.P., Sgroi, Cohen and Miller, JJ.,concur.