Opinion
2018–07931 Ind. No. 5627/15
05-05-2021
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Tyshon KNIGHT, appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (David Crow and Mayer Brown LLP [Michael Rayfield and Jamie Leipzig ], of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Camille O'Hara Gillespie, and Terrence F. Heller of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (David Crow and Mayer Brown LLP [Michael Rayfield and Jamie Leipzig ], of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Camille O'Hara Gillespie, and Terrence F. Heller of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Danny K. Chun, J.), rendered May 17, 2018, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (four counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
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 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 Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting evidence that the defendant's brother had been shot the day prior to the homicide at issue in this case, as well as evidence that the defendant, along with others, had visited his brother at the hospital approximately two hours before the homicide. The People's theory of the case was that the defendant's motive for the homicide at issue was revenge for his brother's shooting, which was shown to be connected to the instant homicide through the physical evidence admitted at trial (see People v. Degree, 186 A.D.3d 501, 503–504, 128 N.Y.S.3d 631 ; see also People v. Foy, 187 A.D.3d 782, 782–783, 131 N.Y.S.3d 390 ). Further, the probative value of the admitted evidence outweighed the risk of prejudice resulting from its admission (see People v. Foy, 187 A.D.3d at 783, 131 N.Y.S.3d 390 ; People v. Degree, 186 A.D.3d at 504, 128 N.Y.S.3d 631 ).
RIVERA, J.P., CONNOLLY, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.