Opinion
2013-09608
03-18-2015
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Vachesla GOLGER, also known as Vacheslav, appellant.
Epstein & Conroy, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Jason W. Eldridge and Gary Conroy of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Keith Dolan, and Allison Ageyeva of counsel), for respondent.
Epstein & Conroy, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Jason W. Eldridge and Gary Conroy of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Keith Dolan, and Allison Ageyeva of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered October 7, 2013, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
An intoxication charge should be issued when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to an element on that basis (see People v. Beaty, 22 N.Y.3d 918, 921, 977 N.Y.S.2d 172, 999 N.E.2d 535 ; People v. Farnsworth, 65 N.Y.2d 734, 735, 492 N.Y.S.2d 12, 481 N.E.2d 552 ). Here, the defendant did not demonstrate his entitlement to a charge on intoxication (see People v. Beaty, 22 N.Y.3d at 921, 977 N.Y.S.2d 172, 999 N.E.2d 535 ; People v. Sirico, 17 N.Y.3d 744, 745, 929 N.Y.S.2d 14, 952 N.E.2d 1006 ; People v. Gaines, 83 N.Y.2d 925, 927, 615 N.Y.S.2d 309, 638 N.E.2d 954 ; People v. Rodriguez, 76 N.Y.2d 918, 920, 563 N.Y.S.2d 48, 564 N.E.2d 658 ; cf. People v. Velcher, 116 A.D.3d 799, 982 N.Y.S.2d 905 ).
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 of sexual abuse in the first degree and assault in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see CPL 70.10[1] ; Penal Law §§ 10.00[9] ; 120.05[6]; 130.00 [3], [8]; 130.65[1]; People v. Chiddick, 8 N.Y.3d 445, 447, 834 N.Y.S.2d 710, 866 N.E.2d 1039 ; People v. Santi, 3 N.Y.3d 234, 236, 785 N.Y.S.2d 405, 818 N.E.2d 1146 ; People v. Taylor, 94 N.Y.2d 910, 911, 707 N.Y.S.2d 618, 729 N.E.2d 337 ).
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, 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, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
SKELOS, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HINDS–RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.