Opinion
2010–04839 Ind.No. 4336/08
01-17-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Deshaun MORRIS, appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Erica Horwitz of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Keith Dolan of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Erica Horwitz of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Keith Dolan of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, BETSY BARROS, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Albert Tomei, J.), rendered May 12, 2010, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon 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, 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 (see Penal Law § 125.25[1] ) beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Hale, 147 A.D.3d 975, 48 N.Y.S.3d 159 ; People v. Leddy, 47 A.D.3d 842, 849 N.Y.S.2d 163 ). Additionally, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPLR 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 ; 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, 643–644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
The defendant's contention that his right to due process was violated by alleged prosecutorial misconduct on summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ), as the defendant failed to object, request curative instructions, or timely move for a mistrial (see People v. Dunning, 148 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 49 N.Y.S.3d 755 ), and we decline to review the contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[3][c] ; [6]; People v. Grant, 152 A.D.3d 792, 793, 59 N.Y.S.3d 433 ; People v. Jones, 139 A.D.3d 878, 880, 31 N.Y.S.3d 191 ; People v. Ellis, 133 A.D.3d 777, 778, 19 N.Y.S.3d 752 ; People v. Belle, 113 A.D.3d 630, 631, 977 N.Y.S.2d 916 ).
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for a mistrial (see People v. Pleasant, 146 A.D.3d 985, 986, 46 N.Y.S.3d 643 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.