Opinion
2015-04-15
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Antonio BRUNO, appellant.
Peter J. Guadagnino, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
Peter J. Guadagnino, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.), rendered October 29, 2008, convictinghim of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony regarding his membership in a particular gang and an incident that occurred one week prior to the subject stabbing was relevant to the issue of the defendant's motive and to his claim of justification, and explained the relationship between the parties ( see People v. Kims, 24 N.Y.3d 422, 999 N.Y.S.2d 337, 24 N.E.3d 573; People v. Jordan, 74 A.D.3d 986, 902 N.Y.S.2d 379; People v. Faccio, 33 A.D.3d 1041, 1042, 822 N.Y.S.2d 329; People v. Herrera, 287 A.D.2d 579, 731 N.Y.S.2d 653). Thus, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting such evidence, since its probative value outweighed any prejudice to the defendant ( see generally People v. Cass, 18 N.Y.3d 553, 560, 942 N.Y.S.2d 416, 965 N.E.2d 918; People v. Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d 40, 55, 538 N.Y.S.2d 197, 535 N.E.2d 250; People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808).
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 disprove the defendant's justification defense and 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 ( seeCPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the finder of fact 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 jury's rejection of the defendant's justification defense and the verdict of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 643, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The defendant's allegations in support of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel concern matter dehors the record and, thus, may not be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v. Fisher, 121 A.D.3d 1013, 995 N.Y.S.2d 168; People v. Walters, 120 A.D.3d 1272, 1273, 992 N.Y.S.2d 124; People v. Crawford, 115 A.D.3d 672, 673, 981 N.Y.S.2d 569; People v. McNair, 114 A.D.3d 881, 980 N.Y.S.2d 779).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).