| People v Christian |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 03750 [139 AD3d 870] |
| May 11, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Mitchell Christian, Appellant. |
John A. Scarpa III, Kew Gardens, NY, for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Jonathan V. Brewer of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Kohm, J.), rendered April 22, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a weaponin the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
" '[T]he decision to declare a mistrial rests within the sound discretion of thetrial court which is in the best position to determine if this drastic remedy is trulynecessary to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial' " (People v Knorr,284 AD2d 411, 412 [2001], quoting People v Williams, 264 AD2d 745, 746[1999]; see People vNewkirk, 75 AD3d 853, 856 [2010]; People v Sayles, 57 AD3d 698, 699 [2008]). Under thecircumstances here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying thedefendant's motion for a mistrial during voir dire.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it waslegally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of criminal possession of a weapon inthe second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Campbell, 137 AD3d 807 [2016]; People v Williams, 134 AD3d745 [2015]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independentreview 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, 410 [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]). Austin, J.P., Cohen, Miller and Duffy,JJ., concur.