Opinion
2014-04354, Ind. No. 1441/12.
05-11-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Mitchell CHRISTIAN, appellant.
John A. Scarpa III, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Jonathan V. Brewer of counsel), for respondent.
John A. Scarpa III, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Jonathan V. Brewer of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered April 22, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
“ ‘[T]he decision to declare a mistrial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court which is in the best position to determine if this drastic remedy is truly necessary to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial’ ” (People v. Knorr, 284 A.D.2d 411, 412, 728 N.Y.S.2d 169, quoting People v. Williams, 264 A.D.2d 745, 746, 696 N.Y.S.2d 55 ; see People v. Newkirk, 75 A.D.3d 853, 856, 906 N.Y.S.2d 133 ; People v. Sayles, 57 A.D.3d 698, 699, 871 N.Y.S.2d 178 ). Under the circumstances here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial during voir dire.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Kolupa, 13 N.Y.3d 786, 787, 887 N.Y.S.2d 536, 916 N.E.2d 430 ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ). In any event, 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 criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Campbell, 137 A.D.3d 807, 25 N.Y.S.3d 896 ; People v. Williams, 134 A.D.3d 745, 19 N.Y.S.3d 779 ). 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 (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
AUSTIN, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.