Opinion
2016-06694 Ind. No. 1188/14
06-05-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jerome LESLIE, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Benjamin S. Litman of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Keith Dolan, and Denise Pavlides of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Benjamin S. Litman of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Keith Dolan, and Denise Pavlides of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Neil J. Firetog, J.), rendered May 19, 2016, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in connection with the shooting of Yaquin English on December 24, 2013.
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's oral motion for a trial order of dismissal was specifically directed to the sufficiency of the evidence rebutting his justification defense. Thus, the defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence disproving the justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt is preserved 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 ). 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 disprove the defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
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 ; 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 jury's rejection of the justification defense and 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 ; People v. Russell, 91 N.Y.2d 280, 290, 670 N.Y.S.2d 166, 693 N.E.2d 193 ; People v. Dominguez, 226 A.D.2d 391, 392, 640 N.Y.S.2d 583 ; People v. Mack, 178 A.D.2d 661, 661–662, 577 N.Y.S.2d 892 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, AUSTIN and BARROS, JJ., concur.