Opinion
2018–03029 Ind. No. 410-17
03-18-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Wayne BRASWELL, Appellant.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Elizabeth Miller and Thomas Costello of counsel), for respondent.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Elizabeth Miller and Thomas Costello of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the People to elicit evidence of prior incidents of domestic violence between the defendant and the complainant (see People v. Molineux , 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286 ; People v. Michel , 158 A.D.3d 649, 67 N.Y.S.3d 849 ). The evidence provided relevant background material to enable the jury to understand the defendant's relationship with the complainant and also served as proof of the defendant's intent and the reasonableness of the complainant's fear (see People v. Frankline , 27 N.Y.3d 1113, 1115, 36 N.Y.S.3d 834, 57 N.E.3d 26 ; People v. Rodriguez , 174 A.D.3d 926, 927, 103 N.Y.S.3d 300 ). Moreover, the probative value of the evidence outweighed the risk of prejudice to the defendant, particularly considering the court's limiting instruction to the jury, which served to alleviate any prejudice resulting from the admission of the evidence (see People v. Williams , 160 A.D.3d 665, 666, 73 N.Y.S.3d 598 ; People v. Michel , 158 A.D.3d at 649, 67 N.Y.S.3d 849 ).
Further, on this record, the defendant failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by his counsel's failure to object to certain expert testimony, as such an objection would have had little or no chance of success (see People v. Caban , 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 ; People v. Gokey , 134 A.D.3d 1246, 1247, 21 N.Y.S.3d 462 ).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins , 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 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, 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 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, 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 sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte , 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, LASALLE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.