Opinion
2014-07-16
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Andres BOCHI, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Mark W. Vorkink of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Mark W. Vorkink of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Modica, J.), rendered November 23, 2011, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony that the defendant previously attempted to stab the complainant was properly admitted because it was probative of the defendant's intent, and rebutted the defense of justification ( see People v. Williams, 97 A.D.3d 769, 770, 948 N.Y.S.2d 428;People v. Martinez, 53 A.D.3d 508, 509, 860 N.Y.S.2d 632;People v. James, 19 A.D.3d 616, 797 N.Y.S.2d 129;People v. Lawrence, 4 A.D.3d 436, 771 N.Y.S.2d 362;People v. Williams, 296 A.D.2d 560, 745 N.Y.S.2d 700). Moreover, the probative value of that evidence outweighed any prejudice to the defendant ( see People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 359–360, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to disprove his justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. King, 110 A.D.3d 1100, 1101, 973 N.Y.S.2d 923;People v. Landri, 104 A.D.3d 791, 960 N.Y.S.2d 504;People v. Huddleston, 101 A.D.3d 901, 954 N.Y.S.2d 914;People v. DeFilippo, 100 A.D.3d 767, 768, 953 N.Y.S.2d 663). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053;People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the rejection of the justification defense and the verdict of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85–86, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675). RIVERA, J.P., HALL, SGROI and MALTESE, JJ., concur.