Opinion
10974 Ind. 1019/16
02-06-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Shelton BRYANT, Defendant–Appellant.
Christina A. Swarns, Office of The Appellate Defender, New York (Rosemary Herbert of counsel), and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer U.S. LLP, New York (Rebecca Curwin of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Andrew E. Seewald of counsel), for respondent.
Christina A. Swarns, Office of The Appellate Defender, New York (Rosemary Herbert of counsel), and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer U.S. LLP, New York (Rebecca Curwin of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Andrew E. Seewald of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Richter, Kapnick, Mazzarelli, Moulton, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered April 27, 2017, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of nine years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. Defendant's accessorial liability could be readily inferred from the totality of the conduct of defendant and his codefendant.
Defendant's challenges to the court's supplemental instructions are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court meaningfully responded to the jury's notes (see generally People v. Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 131, 476 N.Y.S.2d 95, 464 N.E.2d 463 [1984] ; People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 302, 449 N.Y.S.2d 168, 434 N.E.2d 237 [1982], cert denied 459 U.S. 847, 103 S.Ct. 104, 74 L.Ed.2d 93 [1982] ).
Defendant's challenges to the admission of the victim's 911 call are also unpreserved, and we likewise decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the recording qualified as an excited utterance and a present sense impression (see generally People v. Johnson, 1 N.Y.3d 302, 306, 772 N.Y.S.2d 238, 804 N.E.2d 402 [2003] ; People v. Vasquez, 88 N.Y.2d 561, 575, 647 N.Y.S.2d 697, 670 N.E.2d 1328 [1996] ).