| People v Wells |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 03862 [161 AD3d 1200] |
| May 30, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Christopher Wells, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Michael Arthus of counsel), for appellant.
Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Morrie I. Kleinbart and AnneGrady of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (StephenJ. Rooney, J.), rendered December 23, 2014, convicting him of murder in the second degree andcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination admitting certain surveillance videofootage from the security system located in a building near the subject shooting, as the Peoplepresented sufficient evidence that the video footage accurately represented the events beingdepicted (see People v Price, 29NY3d 472, 476 [2017]; People v Patterson, 93 NY2d 80, 84 [1999]; People vLynes, 49 NY2d 286, 291-292 [1980]).
We disagree with the Supreme Court's determination admitting photographs depicting thedefendant found on Facebook and Instagram, inasmuch as the People failed to present sufficientevidence that the photographs were accurate and authentic (see People v Price, 29 NY3dat 479-480; cf. People v Franzese,154 AD3d 706, 707 [2017]). However, the admission of the photographs was harmless, asthe proof of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming and there is no significant probability thatthe jury would have acquitted had the photographs not been admitted (see People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination admitting photographs taken by themedical examiner during the victim's autopsy. The photographs served to illustrate andcorroborate the medical examiner's testimony as to the nature and location of the victim's woundsand his manner of death, and to show the shooter's intent. As the manner of death and intent werematerial issues in the case, the photographs were properly admitted (see People vPobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 369-370 [1973]; People v Morin, 146 AD3d 901, 902 [2017]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain comments made bythe prosecutors during the People's opening statement and summation is almost entirelyunpreserved for appellate review since he either failed to object or made only a general one-word[*2]objection to nearly all of the remarks he now challenges(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vSpigner, 153 AD3d 1289, 1289-1290 [2017]). In any event, the majority of thechallenged comments were either fair comment on the evidence and the inferences to be drawntherefrom (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976]), fair response to the defensesummation (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]), or otherwise not improper. Tothe extent that some of the comments were improper, they did not deprive the defendant of a fairtrial.
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in anyevent, without merit. Austin, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Connolly, JJ., concur.