Opinion
2017–05210 Ind.No. 75/16
05-06-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jerry MOORE, Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Justine M. Luongo and William B. Carney of counsel), for appellant. Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Justine M. Luongo and William B. Carney of counsel), for appellant.
Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ROBERT J. MILLER, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (William E. Garnett, J.), rendered May 9, 2017, convicting him of aggravated cruelty to animals, overdriving, torturing, and injuring animals, intimidating a witness in the third degree, and criminal contempt in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Stephen J. Rooney, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the Supreme Court's denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. The police officers' entry into the apartment occupied by the defendant and his wife was made with the wife's consent. Therefore, the officers' entry into the apartment without a warrant did not render the defendant's later statements inadmissible (see Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 ; People v. Garvin, 30 N.Y.3d 174, 88 N.E.3d 319 ).
The defendant's contention that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt of criminal contempt in the second degree is unpreserved 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 ). In any event, 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 establish the defendant's guilt of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of aggravated cruelty to animals and intimidating a witness in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, 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 opportunity of the fact finder 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 as to those three crimes 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 ).
BALKIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, MILLER and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.