Opinion
2017–02694 Ind.No. 6248/15
09-18-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Lorenzo MCGRIFF, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (David L. Goodwin of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and Caroline R. Donhauser of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (David L. Goodwin of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and Caroline R. Donhauser of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree (see Penal Law § 120.05[2] ) arising from an altercation during which he stabbed another man.
The defendant contends that the verdict of guilt and the rejection of his justification defense are against the weight of the evidence. 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 verdict rejecting the defendant's justification defense and finding him guilty 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 also contends that the Supreme Court erred in failing to instruct the jurors explicitly that if they found him not guilty of attempted assault in the first degree by reason of justification, they should acquit him and cease deliberations. The defendant's challenge to the court's instruction was not preserved for our review, and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (cf. CPL 470.15[6][a] ).
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the prosecution exercised its peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner (see Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 ; People v. Childress , 81 N.Y.2d 263, 266–268, 598 N.Y.S.2d 146, 614 N.E.2d 709 ; People v. Morla , 245 A.D.2d 468, 666 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record reveals that his trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento , 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ).
The sentenced imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte , 90 A.D.2d 80, 83, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, HINDS–RADIX and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.