Opinion
2017–03356 Ind. No. 8993/15
11-03-2021
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Marcus SAUNDERS, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, N.Y. (Anjali Biala of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, and Julian Joiris of counsel), for respondent.
Patricia Pazner, New York, N.Y. (Anjali Biala of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, and Julian Joiris of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (William M. Harrington, J.), rendered March 10, 2017, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree after a trial in which the complainant, his daughter, testified that he had forced her to perform oral sex on him on multiple occasions over an extended period of time when she was less than 13 years old.
The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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 of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt ( Penal Law § 130.75[1][b] ). 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, 348, 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, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during her opening statement and summation is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. McMillan, 130 A.D.3d 651, 654–655, 12 N.Y.S.3d 301 ; People v. Banks, 74 A.D.3d 1214, 1215, 905 N.Y.S.2d 627 ; People v. Jones, 9 A.D.3d 374, 375, 779 N.Y.S.2d 583 ). In any event, the majority of the prosecutor's remarks constituted acceptable rhetorical comment, fair comment on the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, or permissible responses to defense counsel's summation. To the extent that some of the remarks may have been improper, they were not so "flagrant or pervasive" as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial ( People v. Mapp, 188 A.D.3d 1260, 1261, 132 N.Y.S.3d 806 ; see People v. Martin, 161 A.D.3d 777, 778, 76 N.Y.S.3d 572 ; People v. Houston, 82 A.D.3d 1122, 1123, 918 N.Y.S.2d 793 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., MILLER, CONNOLLY and GENOVESI, JJ., concur.