| People v Williams |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 02346 [160 AD3d 665] |
| April 4, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Joseph Williams, Appellant. |
Bruce A. Petitio, Poughkeepsie, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, NY (Nicholas D. Mangold and ElizabethL. Schulz of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Robert H.Freehill, J.), rendered June 2, 2015, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in thethird degree and menacing in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Theappeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant'somnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcementofficials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which wasto suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. Police officers responded to thedefendant's home, which he shared with the complainant, upon two 911 calls by the complainantindicating that the defendant had threatened to kill her while wielding a knife. Under thecircumstances, the police had reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime had been committed(see People v Garcia, 20 NY3d317, 324 [2012]; People v Chestnut, 51 NY2d 14 [1980]; People v Dewese, 21 AD3d 426[2005]), justifying a brief investigative detention of the defendant, during which he was askedwhere the knife was located.
Further, the County Court properly denied that branch the defendant's omnibus motion whichwas to suppress physical evidence recovered from his bedroom. The police officers entered thedefendant's bedroom, which he shared with the complainant, upon the complainant's consent(see Schneckloth v Bustamonte, 412 US 218, 219 [1973]; People v Cosme, 48NY2d 286, 290-292 [1979]; People vWatson, 101 AD3d 913 [2012]; People v Madill, 26 AD3d 811 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him is unpreservedfor appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the record demonstrates that thepolice had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see People v Bellow, 255 AD2d 450[1998]; People v Haynes, 251 AD2d 595 [1998]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly admitted evidence of hisprior acts of domestic violence against the complainant as probative of the nature of the [*2]relationship between him and the complainant and probative of hismotive and intent to menace the complainant (see People v Charles, 121 AD3d 802 [2014]; People v Sanchez, 73 AD3d 1093[2010]; People v Sanchez, 54 AD3d638 [2008]; People v Gorham,17 AD3d 858 [2005]). Moreover, the probative value of the evidence outweighed the risk ofprejudice to the defendant, particularly considering the court's limiting instruction to the jury,which served to alleviate any prejudice resulting from the admission of the evidence (see People v Beer, 146 AD3d 895[2017]; People v Charles, 121 AD3d at 803; People v Holden, 82 AD3d 1007 [2011]). In addition, theprosecutor did not elicit evidence that exceeded the scope of the court's Molineux ruling(see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]; People v Echavarria, 53 AD3d 859 [2008]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency ofthe evidence supporting his convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degreeand menacing in the second degree (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing theevidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond areasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review ofthe weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, andobserve demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]; People v Bleakley,69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict ofguilty was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Dillon, J.P., Duffy, Connolly and Christopher, JJ., concur.