From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hough

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 20, 2016
138 A.D.3d 1020 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

04-20-2016

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Dwayne HOUGH, appellant.

Beverly Van Ness, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Joseph Mogelnicki of counsel), for respondent.


Beverly Van Ness, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Joseph Mogelnicki of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Spergel, J.), rendered December 12, 2013, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the facts and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.

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 ), and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference which could be drawn from the circumstantial evidence adduced (see People v. Lewis, 64 N.Y.2d 1111, 1112, 490 N.Y.S.2d 166, 479 N.E.2d 802 ), we find that the evidence 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, 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 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 ). 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 ).

However, as we held on the appeal of the defendant's codefendant, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion discharging a sworn juror (see People v. Owens, 136 A.D.3d 841, 24 N.Y.S.3d 717 ). As such, a new trial must be ordered.

MASTRO, J.P., DICKERSON, HALL and SGROI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hough

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 20, 2016
138 A.D.3d 1020 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Hough

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Dwayne HOUGH, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 20, 2016

Citations

138 A.D.3d 1020 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 3012
28 N.Y.S.3d 628

Citing Cases

People v. Thomas

As explained above, the legislature may have simply assumed that the sentence imposed on the prior crime…

People v. Thomas

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's second motion to…