Opinion
11-02-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Robert L. DIXON, also known as Robert Dixon, appellant.
Forchelli, Curto, Deegan, Schwartz, Mineo & Terrana, LLP, Uniondale, N.Y. (Michael A. Ciaffa of counsel), for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Daniel Bresnahan and John B. Latella of counsel), for respondent.
Forchelli, Curto, Deegan, Schwartz, Mineo & Terrana, LLP, Uniondale, N.Y. (Michael A. Ciaffa of counsel), for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Daniel Bresnahan and John B. Latella of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Donnino, J.), rendered July 6, 2015, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence. 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, 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 jurors' 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 ).
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant sufficiently preserved for appellate review his challenge to the admission into evidence of certain text messages between his codefendants (see CPL 470.05[2] ). However, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting the text messages (see People v. Harris, 26 N.Y.3d 1, 5, 18 N.Y.S.3d 583, 40 N.E.3d 560 ; People v. Alcantara, 78 A.D.3d 721, 722, 910 N.Y.S.2d 509 ).
The defendant's contention that certain comments made by the prosecution during summation were improper is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Woods, 59 A.D.3d 468, 469, 872 N.Y.S.2d 537 ). Further, there is no merit to the defendant's remaining contention that the cumulative effect of the admission of the text messages into evidence combined with the prosecution's comments deprived him of a fair trial.