| People v Lopez |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 04297 [150 AD3d 1266] |
| May 31, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Cecilio Lopez, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Lauren E. Jones of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Jean M. Joyceof counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano,Jr., J.), rendered June 27, 2013, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, ofthat branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to lawenforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly denied suppression of the defendant's statement to lawenforcement officials. " 'The credibility determinations of the Supreme Court, which sawand heard the witnesses at the suppression hearing, are entitled to great weight on appeal, andwill not be disturbed unless they are unsupported by the record' " (People v Reaves, 112 AD3d 746,747 [2013], quoting People vTimmons, 54 AD3d 883, 885 [2008]). Based on the evidence presented at the hearing,the defendant's statement, made after his arrest but before administration of Mirandawarnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), was not triggered by anypolice questioning or other conduct which reasonably could have been expected to elicit adeclaration from him (see People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476, 480 [1982]; People v Tavares-Nunez, 87 AD3d1171 [2011]; People v Dunn, 195 AD2d 240 [1994], affd 85 NY2d 956[1995]).
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 beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). Moreover, infulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence(see CPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence.
[*2] The defendantchallenges certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation. Most of the challengedremarks were fair comment on the evidence, responsive to defense counsel's summation, orpermissible rhetorical comment (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Hatcher, 130 AD3d 648,649 [2015]). To the extent that some of the remarks were improper, they were not so flagrant orpervasive as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 394 [2005]; People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]). Chambers, J.P., Roman, Miller and Connolly, JJ.,concur.