Opinion
07-10-2024
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ricardo JIMENEZ, appellant.
Lipman & Booth, LLC, New York, NY (Christopher Booth of counsel), for appellant. Miriam E. Rocah, District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Virginia A. Marciano and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Lipman & Booth, LLC, New York, NY (Christopher Booth of counsel), for appellant.
Miriam E. Rocah, District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Virginia A. Marciano and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
BETSY BARROS, J.P., PAUL WOOTEN, BARRY E. WARHIT, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (David S. Zuckerman, J.), rendered November 29, 2021, convicting him of bribery in the second degree and rewarding official misconduct in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of bribery in the second degree and rewarding official misconduct in the second degree. The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Conies, 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. 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, 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).
The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s applications for a mistrial based on the court’s COVID-19 safety protocols. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court’s COVID-19 safety protocols did not deprive him of the ability to meaningfully participate in jury selection or violate his right to due process (see People v. Ramirez, 41 N.Y.3d 406, 411-412, 211 N.Y.S.3d 251, 234 N.E.3d 1043).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
BARROS, J.P., WOOTEN, WARHIT and VENTURA, JJ., concur.