Opinion
2012-05609
05-06-2015
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Deighton K. REED, appellant.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Karla Lato 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. (Karla Lato of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ROBERT J. MILLER, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Braslow, J.), rendered May 23, 2012, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the trial court's Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ) is without merit. The defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the prejudicial effect of cross-examination regarding the prior conviction and underlying charges so outweighed the probative worth of that evidence that exclusion was warranted (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d at 378, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ; People v. Cosme, 99 A.D.3d 940, 952 N.Y.S.2d 269 ; People v. Flowers, 273 A.D.2d 938, 939, 710 N.Y.S.2d 295 ; People v. Intelisano, 188 A.D.2d 881, 882–883, 591 N.Y.S.2d 883 ).The defendant's contention that autopsy photographs of the victim were improperly admitted into evidence by the trial court is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to raise any objection to the admission of those photographs (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Rivera, 74 A.D.3d 993, 994, 904 N.Y.S.2d 449 ). In any event, the photographs were properly admitted to illustrate and corroborate the testimony of the medical examiner who performed the autopsy (see People v. Wende, 122 A.D.3d 884, 996 N.Y.S.2d 672 ; People v. Rivera, 74 A.D.3d at 993, 904 N.Y.S.2d 449 ). As the photographs showed the nature of the injury, they were relevant to a material issue at trial (see People v. Hamilton, 66 A.D.3d 921, 887 N.Y.S.2d 261 ; People v. Meeks, 56 A.D.3d 800, 868 N.Y.S.2d 287 ; People v. Collic, 285 A.D.2d 514, 728 N.Y.S.2d 487 ; Penal Law § 125.25[1] ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the availability of other evidence with regard to the injury did not require exclusion of the photographs (see People v. Reyes, 49 A.D.3d 565, 855 N.Y.S.2d 160 ; People v. Allan, 41 A.D.3d 727, 839 N.Y.S.2d 771 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).