| People v Brown |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 08647 [145 AD3d 1483] |
| December 23, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vWillie Brown, Jr., Appellant. |
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Victoria M. White of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony F. Aloi, J.),rendered September 4, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, ofassault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourthdegree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a juryverdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]) andcriminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (§ 265.01 [2]).Defendant's conviction arose from an incident in which he cut the victim's face after thevictim failed to pay defendant $15 allegedly owed in connection with a drug transaction.Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court did not err in permitting the victim totestify with respect to the nature of the debt inasmuch as the court, in engaging in therequisite two-part inquiry, properly determined that the evidence was material withrespect to the relationship of the parties and motive and that the probative value of theevidence outweighed its prejudicial effect (see generally People v Cass, 18 NY3d 553, 560 [2012]). Inany event, following the court's curative instruction, "defense counsel neither objectedfurther nor requested a mistrial, and thus . . . the curative instructions mustbe deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant's satisfaction" (People v Elian, 129 AD3d1635, 1636 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1087 [2015] [internal quotationmarks omitted]).
We reject defendant's further contention that the court erred in denying hisBatson objections to the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges for twoprospective jurors. We note at the outset that defendant concedes that the court did noterr in denying his Batson objection with respect to the exercise of a peremptorychallenge for a third prospective juror. With respect to the first prospective juror, theprosecutor explained that the prospective juror failed to disclose that she knew someonewho had been convicted of a crime, i.e., her uncle; that some of her answers led theprosecutor to believe that she would not be fair to the victim; and that she knew the Chiefof the Syracuse Police Department, who had well-publicized disputes with the DistrictAttorney. The court's credibility determinations with respect to Batson objectionsare entitled to great deference (see People v Luciano, 10 NY3d 499, 505 [2008]), and wewill not disturb the court's determination that the prosecutor provided race-neutralexplanations for the peremptory challenge. With respect to the second prospective juror,we conclude that the court properly determined that the prosecutor provided arace-neutral explanation for the challenge by explaining that the prospective juror hadpreviously worked with troubled young adults, which might cause her to be biasedtoward defendant (see People vHolloway, 71 AD3d 1486, 1487 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 774[2010]).
Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Contrary todefendant's contention, the testimony of the victim and his girlfriend, who was aneyewitness, was not incredible as a matter of law (see People v Hailey, 128 AD3d 1415, 1417 [2015], lvdenied 26 NY3d 929 [2015]). Moreover, the jury was entitled to credit the testimonyof the victim and his girlfriend that they had a long-standing relationship with defendantand that defendant went to the victim's home and cut his face after he failed to paydefendant $15, while rejecting the testimony of defense witnesses that defendant did notknow the victim well and that he was not in the vicinity of the victim's home at the timeof the crime. We perceive no basis to disturb the jury's credibility determinations (see People v Brown, 140AD3d 1740, 1740 [2016]).
The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Carni, J.P., DeJoseph,NeMoyer, Troutman and Scudder, JJ.