Opinion
2014-07-16
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jamir KING, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Daniel Bresnahan, and Mariana Zelig of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Daniel Bresnahan, and Mariana Zelig of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McGann, J.), rendered May 10, 2012, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( 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 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 factfinder'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 trial court did not err in permitting the People to impeach one of their own witnesses with his prior written statement and grand jury testimony ( see CPL 60.35). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the witness's testimony tended to disprove the People's case and affirmatively damaged the People's position ( see People v. Clark, 37 A.D.3d 487, 488, 829 N.Y.S.2d 201;People v. Faulkner, 220 A.D.2d 525, 526, 632 N.Y.S.2d 189;People v. Bumpus, 163 A.D.2d 484, 558 N.Y.S.2d 587).
The defendant's challenge to certain comments made by the prosecutor on summation is unpreserved for appellate review, as he registered only a general one-word objection to one of the comments, and failed to object at all to the remaining comments ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Evans, 116 A.D.3d 879, 983 N.Y.S.2d 439;People v. Allen, 114 A.D.3d 958, 959, 982 N.Y.S.2d 322). In any event, the remarks were fair response to defense counsel's summation or fair comment on the evidence ( see People v. Rogers, 106 A.D.3d 1029, 1030, 965 N.Y.S.2d 361;People v. Birot, 99 A.D.3d 933, 952 N.Y.S.2d 293). DILLON, J.P., LOTT, AUSTIN and BARROS, JJ., concur.