| People v Muhammad |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08157 [100 AD3d 1021] |
| November 28, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v NaimMuhammad, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and MerriTurk Lasky of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of Supreme Court, Queens County (Lasak, J.),rendered April 28, 2010, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), attemptedmurder in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree(two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a juryverdict, 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 prove the defendant'sguilt beyond a reasonable doubt of murder in the second degree as to Derrick Samuels and ofcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in thethird degree. 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, 348 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury'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, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the recordhere, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt in connection with these crimes was not against theweight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that his conviction of attempted murder in second degree as toJeffrey Roddy was not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People vGray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v McDaniel, 84 AD3d 1410, 1411 [2011]). In any event,viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes,60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove his guilt of that crimebeyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independentreview of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d at 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view thewitnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383[2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt in connection with the crime of attempted murder in the seconddegree as to [*2]Jeffrey Roddy was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Romero, 7NY3d 633 [2006]).
Contrary to defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his application tocharge the jury on manslaughter in the first degree as a lesser-included count of murder in thesecond degree in connection with the murder of Jeanette Boskett. There was no reasonable viewof the evidence which would support a finding that the defendant committed manslaughter in thefirst degree, but did not commit murder in the second degree (see CPL 300.50; seealso People v Butler, 84 NY2d 627 [1994]; People v Scarborough, 49 NY2d 364[1980]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should have granted his request for amissing witness charge as to James Everett and Johnson Thompson is without merit.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Delgado, 80 NY2d 780[1992]; People v Thompson, 60 NY2d 513, 519 [1983]; People v Suitte, 90AD2d 80, 85-86 [1982]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.