Opinion
2012-06-27
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ronny LEGETTE, appellant.
Thomas J. Butler, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Yael V. Levy, Cristin N. Connell, and Joseph Mogelnicki of counsel), for respondent.
Thomas J. Butler, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Yael V. Levy, Cristin N. Connell, and Joseph Mogelnicki of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Berkowitz, J.), rendered September 7, 2010, as amended September 20, 2010, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, certain statements made by a prospective juror which were the subject of the defendant's for-cause challenge to that prospective juror did not “rise to the level of actual bias or otherwise indicate that [he] would be unable to render an impartial verdict” ( People v. Archer, 210 A.D.2d 241, 241, 619 N.Y.S.2d 738;see CPL 270.20 [1][b]; People v. Glover, 69 A.D.3d 877, 878, 894 N.Y.S.2d 469;People v. Forino, 65 A.D.3d 1259, 1260, 887 N.Y.S.2d 114;People v. Smith, 48 A.D.3d 489, 849 N.Y.S.2d 789). Thus, the trial court properly denied the defendant's for-cause challenge to the juror.
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 prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed assault in the first degree ( see Penal Law § 120.10 [2]; People v. Lausane, 16 A.D.3d 523, 792 N.Y.S.2d 115;People v. Rivera, 268 A.D.2d 538, 539, 703 N.Y.S.2d 195;People v. Wade, 187 A.D.2d 687, 590 N.Y.S.2d 245). 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, 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,cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;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 assault in the first degree 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 defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the trial court erred in permitting the physician who treated the victim at the emergency room, and sutured the 10–inch laceration to the victim's face, to opine as to the origin of a “divot” in the victim's skull ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919). In any event, the contention is without merit, as the Supreme Court properly permitted the testimony ( see People v. West, 86 A.D.3d 583, 926 N.Y.S.2d 659;People v. Prowse, 60 A.D.3d 703, 704, 875 N.Y.S.2d 121).