| People v Gonzales-Martinez |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 00670 [136 AD3d 651] |
| February 3, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jairon Gonzales-Martinez, Appellant. |
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, NY (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Thomas C. Costello of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County(Cohen, J.), rendered May 22, 2013, convicting him of murder in the second degree,attempted murder in the second degree, gang assault in the first degree, assault in the firstdegree, and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's arguments regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence are mostlyunpreserved for appellate review (see People v Rodriguez, 127 AD3d 997 [2015]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see Peoplev Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility toconduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view thewitnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2NY3d 383 [2004]). Upon reviewing the record here, we find that the verdict was notagainst the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in admitting testimony relating to the defendant's alleged membership in agang, since the probative value of that testimony outweighed any prejudice to thedefendant (see People vBorrero, 79 AD3d 767 [2010]; People v Jordan, 74 AD3d 986 [2010]). The testimony wasrelevant to the issue of the defendant's motive, was inextricably interwoven into thenarrative, and explained the relationships between the parties (see People v Jordan, 74 AD3d986 [2010]). Moreover, the Supreme Court alleviated any prejudice to the defendantby providing appropriate limiting instructions (see People v Borrero, 79 AD3d 767 [2010]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Leventhal, J.P., Chambers,Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.