| People v Giddens |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 05487 [163 AD3d 990] |
| July 25, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ronald Giddens, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, William H. Branigan, and Josette Simmons of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kenneth C.Holder, J.), rendered May 13, 2015, convicting him of murder in the second degree,manslaughter in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon inthe second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and criminalpossession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictionsof murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree,and that the verdict of guilt on those counts was against the weight of the evidence. Thedefendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting those convictions isunpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to move for a trial order of dismissalspecifically directed at the errors he now claims (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484,492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidencein the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621[1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of those crimesbeyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independentreview of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342[2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses,hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004];People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt on these counts was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erredin refusing to charge the jury on the defense of justification is preserved for appellate review.However, we agree with the court's determination since, viewing the record in the light mostfavorable to the defendant, no reasonable view of the evidence supported such a charge (seePeople v Watts, 57 NY2d 299, 301-302 [1982]; People v Syville, 130 AD3d 658 [2015]; People v Baranov,121 [*2]AD3d 706, 707 [2014]; People v Fowler, 101 AD3d 898,899 [2012]; People v Cotsifas, 100AD3d 1015 [2012]; People vSmall, 80 AD3d 786, 786-787 [2011]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial due to improperremarks made by the prosecutor during his opening statement and summation is largelyunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dien, 77 NY2d885, 886 [1991]). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. The prosecutor'scomments were either fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawntherefrom or responsive to defense counsel's summation, or otherwise did not deprive thedefendant of a fair trial (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v King, 144 AD3d 1176,1176-1177 [2016]; People vNanand, 137 AD3d 945, 947-948 [2016]; People v Willis, 122 AD3d 950 [2014]; People v Hoke, 111 AD3d 959,960 [2013]; People v McGowan,111 AD3d 850, 851 [2013]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Rivera, J.P., Hinds-Radix, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.