| People v Edwards |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 06328 [120 AD3d 1435] |
| September 24, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lee Anderson Edwards, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Winston McIntosh and De Nice Powell ofcounsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Latella, J.), rendered April 1, 2011, convicting him of murder in the second degree andcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (three counts), 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 establishbeyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to cause the death of the victim.Here, intent can be inferred from the defendant's conduct and the surroundingcircumstances (see People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301 [1977]; People v Bryant, 39 AD3d768, 769 [2007]).
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of theweight of the evidence (seePeople v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord greatdeference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, andobserve demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that the People's summation remarks constitutedreversible error is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Tonge,93 NY2d 838 [1999]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-20 [1995]; People vHeide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Williams, 46 NY2d 1070, 1071[1979]). In any event, the summation comments alleged to be inflammatory andprejudicial were either fair comment on the evidence (see People v Ashwal, 39NY2d 105, 109-111 [1976]), responsive to arguments and theories presented in thedefense summation (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]; People v Crawford, 54 AD3d961 [2008]), stricken, thereby dissipating any prejudice resulting from the impropercomment (see People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294 [1983]; People v Arce, 42NY2d 179, 187 [1977]; Peoplev Gouveia, 88 AD3d 814, 815-816 [2011]), or constituted harmless error(see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Persaud, 98 AD3d527, 529 [2012]).
[*2] The defendant'scontention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial after theprosecutor called a witness who, when asked if she recognized anyone in the courtroom,responded that she could not remember, is without merit (see People v Berg, 59NY2d at 298; People vBerry, 110 AD3d 1002, 1002 [2013]; People v Alston, 71 AD3d 684, 685 [2010]; People vTorres, 141 AD2d 682 [1988]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit (see People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d at 242). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Duffy, JJ.,concur.