Opinion
2018-14667 Ind. No. 8863/15
08-03-2022
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Fritz CELESTINE, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Cynthia Colt of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Keith Dolan of counsel), for respondent.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Cynthia Colt of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Keith Dolan of counsel), for respondent.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, PAUL WOOTEN, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered November 18, 2018, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to a law enforcement official.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Jordan, 201 A.D.3d 946, 947, 160 N.Y.S.3d 117 ). 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 establish the defendant's guilt 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, 348, 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 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 here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to a law enforcement official. "The credibility determinations of a hearing court following a suppression hearing are accorded great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" ( Matter of Cromwell S., 154 A.D.3d 857, 858, 61 N.Y.S.3d 694 ; see People v. Fletcher, 130 A.D.3d 1063, 1064, 15 N.Y.S.3d 797, affd 27 N.Y.3d 1177, 37 N.Y.S.3d 474, 58 N.E.3d 1111 ). Here, the record supports the court's determination to credit the testimony of a police detective at the suppression hearing. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the detective's testimony was not incredible, patently tailored to overcome constitutional objections, or otherwise unworthy of belief (see Matter of Cromwell S., 154 A.D.3d at 858, 61 N.Y.S.3d 694 ; People v. Mitchell, 123 A.D.3d 945, 945, 999 N.Y.S.2d 461 ; People v. Hobson, 111 A.D.3d 958, 959, 975 N.Y.S.2d 682 ).
The Supreme Court also properly admitted at trial a statement that the defendant made to a paramedic. The statement was relevant to the issue of the defendant's motive, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by its potential for undue prejudice (see People v. Degree, 186 A.D.3d 501, 503–504, 128 N.Y.S.3d 631 ; People v. Anderson, 180 A.D.3d 923, 924, 120 N.Y.S.3d 63, affd 36 N.Y.3d 1109, 144 N.Y.S.3d 678, 168 N.E.3d 851 ).
The defendant's contention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Sylvestre, 178 A.D.3d 863, 864, 116 N.Y.S.3d 98 ). In any event, the contention is without merit. The challenged remarks were either fair comment on the evidence, a fair response to issues raised in defense counsel's summation, or not so egregious as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Williams, 201 A.D.3d 969, 971, 157 N.Y.S.3d 760 ; People v. Rodriguez, 175 A.D.3d 721, 722, 105 N.Y.S.3d 307 ). Moreover, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to preserve this contention (see People v. Lane, 189 A.D.3d 1265, 1267, 134 N.Y.S.3d 213 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
DUFFY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WOOTEN and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.