| People v Reed |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03870 [128 AD3d 734] |
| May 6, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Deighton K. Reed, Appellant. |
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Karla Lato of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Braslow, J.), rendered May 23, 2012, convicting him of murder in the second degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the trial court's Sandoval ruling (see Peoplev Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) is without merit. The defendant failed to meet hisburden of demonstrating that the prejudicial effect of cross-examination regarding theprior conviction and underlying charges so outweighed the probative worth of thatevidence that exclusion was warranted (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d at 378;People v Cosme, 99 AD3d940 [2012]; People v Flowers, 273 AD2d 938, 939 [2000]; People vIntelisano, 188 AD2d 881, 882-883 [1992]).
The defendant's contention that autopsy photographs of the victim were improperlyadmitted into evidence by the trial court is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failedto raise any objection to the admission of those photographs (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Rivera, 74 AD3d993, 994 [2010]). In any event, the photographs were properly admitted to illustrateand corroborate the testimony of the medical examiner who performed the autopsy (see People v Wende, 122AD3d 884 [2014]; People v Rivera, 74 AD3d at 993). As the photographsshowed the nature of the injury, they were relevant to a material issue at trial (see People v Hamilton, 66AD3d 921 [2009]; People vMeeks, 56 AD3d 800 [2008]; People v Collic, 285 AD2d 514 [2001];Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, theavailability of other evidence with regard to the injury did not require exclusion of thephotographs (see People vReyes, 49 AD3d 565 [2008]; People v Allan, 41 AD3d 727 [2007]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive(see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Miller andHinds-Radix, JJ., concur.