Opinion
2014-05-2
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dennis BROWNING, Defendant–Appellant.
Michael J. Stachowski, P.C., Buffalo (Michael J. Stachowski of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Nicholas T. Texido of Counsel), for Respondent.
Michael J. Stachowski, P.C., Buffalo (Michael J. Stachowski of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Nicholas T. Texido of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS AND VALENTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a nonjury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3] ). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in admitting the testimony of a police officer regarding the meaning of coded language used in a recorded conversation. Contrary to defendant's contention, expert testimony interpreting the meaning of words is not restricted to narcotics cases ( see People v. Inoa, 109 A.D.3d 765, 766, 971 N.Y.S.2d 530;People v. Pendelton, 90 A.D.3d 1234, 1235 n. 2, 934 N.Y.S.2d 611,lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 996, 945 N.Y.S.2d 651, 968 N.E.2d 1007), and the record establishes that the police officer was qualified to interpret the language based on his experience ( see Matott v. Ward, 48 N.Y.2d 455, 459, 423 N.Y.S.2d 645, 399 N.E.2d 532;People v. Wyant, 98 A.D.3d 1277, 1277–1278, 951 N.Y.S.2d 294).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.