Opinion
03-01-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Gregory D. HICKS, appellant.
John De Chiaro, Larchmont, NY, for appellant. Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Virginia A. Marciano, Laurie Sapakoff, and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
John De Chiaro, Larchmont, NY, for appellant.
Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Virginia A. Marciano, Laurie Sapakoff, and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered June 8, 2012, convicting him of rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree (two counts), and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's challenge to the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ). In making its ruling, the court engaged in the requisite balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect, and reached an appropriate compromise ruling, which precluded the prosecution from inquiring into the underlying facts of the defendant's prior convictions (see People v. Walker, 141 A.D.3d 678, 678, 36 N.Y.S.3d 182 ; People v. Murad, 55 A.D.3d 754, 755, 865 N.Y.S.2d 331 ).
The defendant's contention that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt by legally sufficient evidence because his intoxication rendered him incapable of forming the requisite criminal intent is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Lewis, 96 A.D.3d 878, 878, 946 N.Y.S.2d 206 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant manifested the requisite criminal intent (see People v. Zapata, 98 A.D.3d 539, 540, 949 N.Y.S.2d 175 ; People v. Dorst, 194 A.D.2d 622, 598 N.Y.S.2d 800 ). Moreover, upon 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, 349, 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, 643, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).