| People v Pitre |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05231 [108 AD3d 643] |
| July 10, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v John Pitre, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and ShulamitRosenblum Nemec of counsel; David Schiavone on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Chun, J.), rendered February 17, 2011, convicting him of murder in the second degreeand criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting hisconvictions is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to move for a trial orderof dismissal specifically directed at the errors he now claims (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hawkins, 11NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see Peoplev Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient toestablish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence(see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony,and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], certdenied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not againstthe weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
In his pro se supplemental brief, the defendant contends that the trial court erred inallowing a father and daughter both to be seated on his jury. This claim is unpreservedfor appellate review because the jurors' relationship was exposed during voir dire, but thedefendant chose not to challenge it (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, theprospective jurors' relationship was not one that implicates CPL 270.20 (1) (c) (cf.People v Stamps, 254 AD2d 507 [1998]; People v De Rosa, 187 AD2d 980[1992]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, hisright of confrontation (see US Const Sixth Amend) was not violated when anexpert testified that a DNA profile produced by the Office of the Chief MedicalExaminer (hereinafter OCME) from a [*2]sample of thedecedent's blood matched a DNA profile produced by the OCME from a sample of astain on a pair of jeans given to the office by the police department. The DNA profileswere not testimonial (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 51-52 [2004]), butrather, were merely raw data that, standing alone, did not link the defendant to the crime(see People v Brown, 13NY3d 332 [2009]; People vRawlins, 10 NY3d 136 [2008]; People v Thompson, 70 AD3d 866 [2010]; People v Dail, 69 AD3d873 [2010]; see also Williams v Illinois, 567 US —, 132 S Ct 2221[2010]). The connection of the defendant to the crime was made by the testimony ofpolice officers establishing that the defendant was wearing the subject jeans whenarrested, and of the DNA expert, who testified that, based on his analysis, the two subjectDNA profiles matched (seePeople v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]; People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136 [2008]; People v Thompson, 70 AD3d866 [2010]; People vDail, 69 AD3d 873 [2010]). Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Cohen, JJ.,concur.