| People v Yanez |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 01093 [180 AD3d 816] |
| February 13, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Marvin Yanez, Appellant. |
Kristina S. Heuser, P.C., Locust Valley, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Tammy J. Smiley and Jason R.Richards of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Helene F. Gugerty, J.), rendered January 25, 2018, convicting him of murder in thesecond degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in thefourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establishthe defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibilityto conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunityto 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 notagainst the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting optical discscontaining surveillance videos from various video surveillance systems, as the Peoplepresented sufficient evidence that the videos truly and accurately represented what wasbefore the cameras (see People v Patterson, 93 NY2d 80, 84 [1999]; People v Costello, 128 AD3d848 [2015]). The fact that the time stamps on some of the videos differed from thetime the videos were actually recorded went to the weight of the evidence, not itsadmissibility (see People vOrlando, 61 AD3d 1001 [2009]; People v Gibbons, 18 AD3d 773 [2005]; People vJackson, 200 AD2d 856, 858 [1994]). The court also providently exercised itsdiscretion in admitting into evidence a "timeline video" containing footage compiledfrom various surveillance videos as an aid to the jury. The detective who created thevideo testified about the compilation process, explained that he added captions to thevideo to show the correct date and time each video was recorded, and the court instructedthe jury to evaluate the accuracy of the compilation by evaluating the detective'scredibility (see People vCabrera, 137 AD3d 707 [2016]; People v Shields, 100 AD3d 549, 550-551 [2012]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in permitting awitness to testify that in the hours before the victim was killed, the defendant fought withthe victim and threatened him. "[T]he hearsay rule does not exclude the admission ofout-of-court statements demonstrating the state of mind of the declarant when that stateof mind is an issue in the case" (People v Chambers, 125 AD2d 88, 91 [1987]).Moreover, "when a particular act of the declarant is at issue, the declarant's statement of afuture intent to perform that act is admissible as proof of the declarant's intent on thatissue and as inferential proof that the declarant carried out [or attempted to carry out] hisintent" (id. at 91; see People v James, 93 NY2d 620 [1999]; People v Kimes, 37 AD3d1, 10 [2006]; People v D'Arton, 289 AD2d 711, 712-713 [2001]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Balkin, J.P., Austin, LaSalleand Iannacci, JJ., concur.