Opinion
2012-05-23
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Christian ESTEVEZ, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Marie John–Drigo of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Marie John–Drigo of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RANDALL T. ENG, ARIEL E. BELEN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered May 10, 2010, 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 legal sufficiency of the evidence 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, 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,cert. denied542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;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, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the Supreme Court deprived him of a fair trial and his right to present a defense by precluding defense counsel from introducing his prior videotaped statement into evidence is unpreserved for appellate review, since the specific arguments made by the defendant on appeal were not made by defense counsel in the Supreme Court (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Lopez, 82 A.D.3d 1264, 919 N.Y.S.2d 396) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v. Williams, 217 A.D.2d 713, 630 N.Y.S.2d 91).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).