| People v Scruggs |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07995 [111 AD3d 966] |
| November 27, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Shantelle Scruggs, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael J. Miller of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R.Doyle, J.), rendered June 17, 2009, convicting her of murder in the second degree, upona jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support herconviction of murder in the second degree because the People failed to prove the elementof intent to kill is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). 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 (see People v Pickens, 60AD3d 699, 701 [2009]; People v Tigner, 51 AD3d 1045 [2008]). Moreover, infulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (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]).
The defendant contends that the medical examiner improperly testified that themanner of death was a homicide. However, because the defendant failed to object to thistestimony, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]). In any event, any error in this regard was harmless because there was overwhelmingevidence of the defendant's guilt and no significant probability that the error contributedto the defendant's conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975];People v Heath, 49 AD3d970, 973 [2008]; People v James, 123 AD2d 644, 645 [1986]).
During the course of cross-examination of the defendant, the prosecutor improperlyintroduced extrinsic evidence of a prior bad act to impeach her credibility (see Peoplev [*2]Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244 [1969],cert denied 396 US 846 [1969]). However, because there was overwhelmingevidence of the defendant's guilt and no significant probability that the error contributedto the defendant's conviction, that error also was harmless (see People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d at 242).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80,83 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Austin, J.P., Sgroi, Cohenand Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.