Opinion
2019–12928 Ind. No. 1937/18
12-16-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. John JACARUSO, appellant.
Brian J. Davis, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Mark E. Goidell of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill and Hannah X. Scotti of counsel), for respondent.
Brian J. Davis, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Mark E. Goidell of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill and Hannah X. Scotti of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Deborah Stevens Modica, J.), rendered July 31, 2019, convicting him of assault in the second degree, obstructing governmental administration by means of a self-defense spray device, resisting arrest (two counts), and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of assault in the second degree, obstructing governmental administration by means of a self-defense spray device, resisting arrest (two counts), and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, arising out of interactions he had with two off-duty detectives and a uniformed police officer after his motor vehicle was involved in an accident on the Grand Central Parkway in Queens. The defendant's contentions that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins , 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491–492, 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, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt as to each conviction beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law §§ 120.05[3], 195.05, 195.08, 205.30 ; People v. Bueno , 18 N.Y.3d 160,168–169, 936 N.Y.S.2d 636, 960 N.E.2d 405 ; People v. Torres , 130 A.D.3d 1082, 1085, 14 N.Y.S.3d 151 ; see also People v. Lindsey , 52 A.D.3d 527, 529, 859 N.Y.S.2d 486 ). 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, 348–349, 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 as to each conviction 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 ).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was no reasonable view of the evidence that supported a jury charge on justification (see People v. Watts , 57 N.Y.2d 299, 302, 456 N.Y.S.2d 677, 442 N.E.2d 1188 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of a fair trial by the Supreme Court's response to the defendant's statement regarding an electronic device (see People v. Lindsay , 123 A.D.3d 1144, 1145, 999 N.Y.S.2d 186 ).
Further, the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit (see People v. Baldi , 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146–147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ; People v. Burns , 183 A.D.3d 835, 836, 122 N.Y.S.3d 540 ).
Likewise, the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court committed a mode of proceedings error in its handling of a jury note marked as court exhibit 5 (see CPL 310.30 ; People v. O'Rama , 78 N.Y.2d 270, 574 N.Y.S.2d 159, 579 N.E.2d 189 ) is without merit (see People v. Williams , 21 N.Y.3d 932, 934–935, 969 N.Y.S.2d 421, 991 N.E.2d 195 ; People v. Rodriguez , 179 A.D.3d 844, 845, 118 N.Y.S.3d 45 ). The record demonstrates that defense counsel saw the note and the court discussed its proposed response on the record with counsel before the jury entered the courtroom and the court responded to the note (see People v. Rodriguez , 179 A.D.3d at 845, 118 N.Y.S.3d 45 ; People v. Heron , 130 A.D.3d 754, 756, 13 N.Y.S.3d 243 ). The defendant's other challenges to the responses to the jury notes marked as court exhibits 4 and 5 are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Williams , 21 N.Y.3d at 935, 969 N.Y.S.2d 421, 991 N.E.2d 195 ; People v. Rodriguez , 179 A.D.3d at 845, 118 N.Y.S.3d 45 ). In any event, the record demonstrates that the court properly fulfilled its core responsibilities in responding to the jury's notes (see People v. Rodriguez , 179 A.D.3d at 845, 118 N.Y.S.3d 45 ; People v. Heron , 130 A.D.3d at 756, 13 N.Y.S.3d 243 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions also are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ), and we decline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
RIVERA, J.P., DUFFY, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.