| People v Valenko |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02513 [126 AD3d 1020] |
| March 25, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Anatoly Valenko, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Paul Skip Laisure of counsel), forappellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and RuthE. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (JoelGoldberg, J.), rendered December 13, 2011, convicting him of murder in the first degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the trial court improperly discharged potential jurorsbased upon hardship without conducting a sufficient inquiry is unpreserved for appellatereview (see People vCunningham, 119 AD3d 601, 601 [2014]; People v King, 110 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2013]; People v Casanova, 62 AD3d88 [2009]). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit (see Peoplev King, 110 AD3d at 1006; People v Umana, 76 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2010]; People vBoozer, 298 AD2d 261 [2002]).
While the People's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, viewing theevidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and giving it the benefit of everyreasonable inference to be drawn therefrom (see People v Lewis, 64 NY2d 1111,1112 [1985]; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it waslegally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Cartwright, 61AD3d 695, 695 [2009]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct anindependent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to viewthe witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2NY3d 383 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Uponreviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The trial court properly instructed the jury on accomplice liability inasmuch as" 'there was a reasonable view of the evidence to support the charge' "(People v Rizzo, 78 AD3d1641, 1642 [2010], quoting People v Pierre, 41 AD3d 289, 291 [2007]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exerciseits discretion in admitting into evidence certain photographs depicting the victims."Photographic evidence 'should be excluded only if its sole purpose is to arouse theemotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant' " (People v Dorcinvil, 122 AD3d874, 876 [2014], quoting People v Pobliner, 32 [*2]NY2d 356, 370 [1973]; see People v Stevens, 76NY2d 833, 835 [1990]; Peoplev Thompson, 108 AD3d 732, 733 [2013]; People v Thomas, 99 AD3d 737, 738 [2012]). Here, thephotographs were not offered for the sole purpose of arousing the emotions of the jurors(see People v Dorcinvil, 122 AD3d at 876; People v Sampson, 67 AD3d 1031, 1032 [2009]).Moreover, the photographs were not so inflammatory as to have deprived the defendantof a fair trial (see People v Dorcinvil, 122 AD3d at 876; People vThompson, 108 AD3d at 733; People v Thomas, 99 AD3d at 738).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.