Opinion
2013-05-15
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Janvena C. MINTER, appellant.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (John M. Dowden of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Lauren Tan of counsel), for respondent.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (John M. Dowden of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Lauren Tan of counsel), for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Condon, J.), rendered July 12, 2011, convicting her of grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the admission of certain testimony from a detective deprived her of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2] ) and, in any event, is without merit. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the detective did not give testimony that was the equivalent of an opinion asserting that the defendant was guilty of the crimes charged in the indictment ( see People v. Kozlowski, 11 N.Y.3d 223, 240, 869 N.Y.S.2d 848, 898 N.E.2d 891;cf. People v. Ciaccio, 47 N.Y.2d 431, 439, 418 N.Y.S.2d 371, 391 N.E.2d 1347). Moreover, the detective did not impermissibly testify regarding the defendant's post-arrest silence ( cf. People v. Conyers, 52 N.Y.2d 454, 438 N.Y.S.2d 741, 420 N.E.2d 933).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 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 ( seeCPL 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. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053,cert. denied542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;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).