| People v Sanders |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04799 [118 AD3d 1029] |
| June 25, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Tyshon Sanders, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbartand Paul Tarr of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County(Rooney, J.), rendered May 20, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (threecounts) and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court violated his constitutional right toconfrontation by permitting the People to introduce evidence of DNA testing performedon evidence recovered from the crime scene and his buccal swab through the People'sexpert witness, who did not perform every stage of the DNA testing process and wholacked personal knowledge of the procedures used. This contention is without merit. Thecourt properly admitted the expert's testimony (see People v Pitre, 108 AD3d 643, 644 [2013]; People v Washington, 108AD3d 576, 577 [2013]). The court also properly admitted the New York City Officeof Chief Medical Examiner's files containing DNA profiles and objective informationregarding the testing procedures. These files contained DNA profiles prepared prior toreceiving the defendant's DNA and did not, standing alone, link the defendant to thecrime (see People v Washington, 108 AD3d at 577; People v Dail, 69 AD3d873 [2010]). The People's expert conducted the critical analysis linking thedefendant's DNA to the DNA found at the crime scene (see People vWashington, 108 AD3d at 577). The People were not required to present thetestimony of each analyst who contributed to the process and who developed the reports(see People v Thompson, 70AD3d 866 [2010]). Indeed, not everyone "whose testimony may be relevant inestablishing the chain of custody, authenticity of the sample or accuracy of the testingdevice, must appear in person as part of the prosecution's case" (Melendez-Diaz vMassachusetts, 557 US 305, 311 [2009]).
The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that hisconvictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence, is without merit. Viewingthe evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes,60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Person, 74 AD3d 1239 [2010]; People v Dolan, 2 AD3d745 [2003]; see also Peoplev Geroyianis, 96 AD3d 1641 [2012]).
[*2] Additionally, the defendant, in his pro se supplementalbrief, contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. 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]; Peoplev Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we find thatthe verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]). Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.