Opinion
2012-00973
12-24-2014
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Chad JOHNSON, appellant.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas C. Costello of counsel), for respondent.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas C. Costello of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), rendered January 17, 2012, convicting him of murder in the second degree, patronizing a prostitute in the third degree, and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second 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 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 murder in the second degree 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 demeanor (see 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 on the murder count 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 contention that the medical examiner who performed the autopsy of the victim should not have been permitted to testify that the victim's death was a homicide is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Odell, 26 A.D.3d 527, 529, 808 N.Y.S.2d 830 ). In any event, any error was harmless because there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v. Scruggs, 111 A.D.3d 966, 967, 976 N.Y.S.2d 111 ; People v. Heath, 49 A.D.3d 970, 973, 853 N.Y.S.2d 400 ; People v. James, 123 A.D.2d 644, 645, 506 N.Y.S.2d 909 ).
The defendant's challenge to certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, to the extent that some of the comments were improper, they were harmless, since the evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming and there is no significant probability that the errors might have contributed to his convictions (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 ; People v. Barcero, 116 A.D.3d 1060, 1061, 984 N.Y.S.2d 419 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).