Opinion
05-31-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Cecilio LOPEZ, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Lauren E. Jones of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Jean M. Joyce of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Lauren E. Jones of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Jean M. Joyce of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered June 27, 2013, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly denied suppression of the defendant's statement to law enforcement officials. " ‘The credibility determinations of the Supreme Court, which saw and heard the witnesses at the suppression hearing, are entitled to great weight on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless they are unsupported by the record’ " (People v. Reaves, 112 A.D.3d 746, 747, 976 N.Y.S.2d 228, quoting People v. Timmons, 54 A.D.3d 883, 885, 864 N.Y.S.2d 111 ). Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the defendant's statement, made after his arrest but before administration of Miranda warnings (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ), was not triggered by any police questioning or other conduct which reasonably could have been expected to elicit a declaration from him (see People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 480, 453 N.Y.S.2d 156, 438 N.E.2d 862 ; People v. Tavares–Nunez, 87 A.D.3d 1171, 930 N.Y.S.2d 589 ; People v. Dunn, 195 A.D.2d 240, 607 N.Y.S.2d 689, affd. 85 N.Y.2d 956, 626 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 650 N.E.2d 854 ).
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 (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ). 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.
The defendant challenges certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation. Most of the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, responsive to defense counsel's summation, or permissible rhetorical comment (see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109–110, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564 ; People v. Hatcher, 130 A.D.3d 648, 649, 13 N.Y.S.3d 459 ). To the extent that some of the remarks were improper, they were not so flagrant or pervasive as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Almonte, 23 A.D.3d 392, 394, 806 N.Y.S.2d 95 ; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.