Opinion
04-13-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Joshua QUINN, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Lori Glachman of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Lori Glachman of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garnett, J.), rendered September 28, 2012, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, petit larceny, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth 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 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. 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 Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence a recording of a 911 call under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the 911 call, which reported the burglary, was sufficiently corroborated by the testimony at trial of the caller and the police officers who responded to the 911 call (see People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 729, 734, 594 N.Y.S.2d 696, 610 N.E.2d 369; People v. Ross, 112 A.D.3d 972, 977 N.Y.S.2d 93; People v. Robinson, 282 A.D.2d 75, 82, 728 N.Y.S.2d 421).
BALKIN, J.P., SGROI, DUFFY and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.