Opinion
2011–05624 Ind. No. 3468/09
10-02-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Aaron ADDERLY, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (De Nice Powell of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jean M. Joyce of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (De Nice Powell of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jean M. Joyce of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, BETSY BARROS, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Neil Jon Firetog, J.), rendered May 31, 2011, convicting him of murder in the first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, 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, 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 murder in the first degree 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 as to murder in the first degree 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 ).
Nevertheless, the defendant is entitled to a new trial. For the reasons set forth in our decision and order on the appeal of his codefendant Dario Gedeon (see People v. Gedeon, 162 A.D.3d 1065, 79 N.Y.S.3d 665 ), the Supreme Court failed to comply with CPL 310.30, in accordance with the procedures set forth in People v. O'Rama , 78 N.Y.2d 270, 574 N.Y.S.2d 159, 579 N.E.2d 189 for the handling of jury notes. Consequently, we reverse the judgment and order a new trial (see People v. Nealon, 26 N.Y.3d 152, 156, 20 N.Y.S.3d 315, 41 N.E.3d 1130 ; People v. Tabb, 13 N.Y.3d 852, 853, 891 N.Y.S.2d 686, 920 N.E.2d 90 ).
Since there must be a new trial, we note that, although the issue is unpreserved for appellate review, the defendant correctly contends that the Supreme Court should have instructed the jury on the statutory corroboration requirement with regard to an accomplice's testimony (see CPL 60.22 ; People v. Sage, 23 N.Y.3d 16, 23, 988 N.Y.S.2d 104, 11 N.E.3d 177 ; People v. Gedeon, 162 A.D.3d at 1067, 79 N.Y.S.3d 665 ).
In light of our determination, the defendant's remaining contentions have been rendered academic.
MASTRO, J.P., BALKIN, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.