| People v Grasing |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 05845 [152 AD3d 794] |
| July 26, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael T. Grasing, Appellant. |
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Edward E. Smith of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Glenn Green of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.),rendered January 5, 2015, convicting him of aggravated vehicular homicide, manslaughter in thesecond degree, leaving the scene of an incident without reporting, failure to stay in a designatedlane, and exceeding the speed limit, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court properly denied the defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror,since the statements made by the prospective juror did not demonstrate actual bias or otherwiseindicate that he would be unable to render an impartial verdict (see CPL 270.20 [1] [b];People v Ragland, 136 AD3d845, 845 [2016]; People vWright, 134 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2015]; People v Legette, 96 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2012]).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event,viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes,60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt ofaggravated vehicular homicide (Penal Law § 125.14 [4]) and leaving the scene ofan incident without reporting (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 [2]) beyond areasonable doubt (see People vHale, 147 AD3d 975 [2017]; People v Leddy, 47 AD3d 842 [2008]). Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity toview the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2NY3d 383 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing therecord here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence(see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633, 643-644 [2006]).
Further, while "[t]estimony about victims' personal backgrounds that is immaterial to anyissue at trial should be excluded" (People v Harris, 98 NY2d 452, 490-491 [2002]; see People v Holiday, 142 AD3d625 [2016]), to the extent that testimony was elicited from the victim's mother which [*2]was irrelevant to the sequence of events, any error was harmless asthere was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and no significant probability that theerror contributed to his convictions (seePeople v LaValle, 3 NY3d 88, 114 [2004]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230,237 [1975]; see also People vHumphrey, 15 AD3d 683, 685 [2005]).
Similarly, although the County Court erred in allowing police officers to testify aboutremarks made to them by a witness to the incident, who was unavailable to testify at trial, sucherror was harmless (see People vJohnson, 1 NY3d 302, 306 [2003]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d at 237).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Balkin, J.P., Austin, Roman andLaSalle, JJ., concur.