Opinion
2014–06004 Ind.No. 1416/12
04-24-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Lashawn DAVIS, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Bryan D. Kreykes and Alex Donn of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Danielle M. O'Boyle of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Bryan D. Kreykes and Alex Donn of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Danielle M. O'Boyle of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Charles S. Lopresto, J.), rendered June 6, 2014, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree, and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the DNA evidence presented at trial violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause because the testifying analyst merely "function[ed] as a conduit for the conclusions of others" ( People v. John, 27 N.Y.3d 294, 315, 33 N.Y.S.3d 88, 52 N.E.3d 1114 ; see People v. Austin, 30 N.Y.3d 98, 64 N.Y.S.3d 650, 86 N.E.3d 542 ) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v. Mancha, 162 A.D.3d 903, 75 N.Y.S.3d 276 ).
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 of the crimes of which he was convicted. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ), 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 ). 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, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.