| People v Goodbread |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03382 [127 AD3d 1106] |
| April 22, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Calvin Goodbread, Appellant. |
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Adrienne Wallace of counsel), forappellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Edward A. Bannan of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Cohen, J.), rendered October 21, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the second degree,aggravated criminal contempt, criminal contempt in the first degree, criminal contempt inthe second degree, obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, andresisting arrest, 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 establish thedefendant's guilt of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary tothe defendant's contention, the People presented sufficient evidence from which arational factfinder could infer that the defendant entered the subject building unlawfully"with intent to commit a crime therein" (Penal Law § 140.25; see People v Peterson, 118AD3d 1151, 1152-1153 [2014]). The evidence was also legally sufficient toestablish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant caused "substantial pain" and,therefore, "physical injury" to the complainant (Penal Law § 10.00 [9]; see People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d445, 447-448 [2007]; People v Williams, 69 AD3d 662, 662-663 [2010]), asrequired to support his conviction of aggravated criminal contempt (see PenalLaw § 215.52 [1]). 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 factfinder's opportunityto view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 494[1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on thecount of aggravated criminal contempt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The defendant correctly contends that a police officer's testimony that the defendant'sformer girlfriend, who did not testify at trial, told him that the defendant had beaten her,was testimonial hearsay and violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnessesagainst him (see People vClay, 88 AD3d 14, 17, 22-24 [2011]; Hammon v Indiana, 547 US 813[2006]; Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 68 [2004]). However, the error inadmitting the statement into evidence was harmless beyond [*2]a reasonable doubt, as the evidence of the defendant's guilt,without reference to the statement, was overwhelming, and there is no reasonablepossibility that the error might have contributed to the defendant's convictions (seePeople v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]; People v Green, 92 AD3d 953, 955-956 [2012]; People v Green, 43 AD3d1279, 1280 [2007]). Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Dickerson and Maltese, JJ., concur.