Opinion
2017–07991 Ind.No. 1730/15
09-18-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Lord PARDO, Appellant.
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Steven A. Feldman of counsel), for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Jason R. Richards of counsel), for respondent.
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Steven A. Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Jason R. Richards of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, ROBERT J. MILLER, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
On October 11, 2015, the 18–month–old infant victim died after sustaining multiple blunt force injuries to his head, chest cavity, and abdominal cavity, including a lacerated liver, a broken rib, significant internal bleeding, and several contusions and abrasions to his head and chest, while in the care of the defendant. The defendant was arrested and charged, inter alia, with manslaughter in the second degree. He was later convicted, upon a jury verdict, of that charge.
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 beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ). 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 at 348–349, 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 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 defendant's contentions regarding the Supreme Court's supplemental instruction to the jury, given in response to a jury note, are without merit. When a jury requests information or further instructions during its deliberations, the court "must give such requested information or instruction as [it] deems proper" ( CPL 310.30 ). In all circumstances, the response given must be "meaningful" ( People v. Malloy , 55 N.Y.2d 296, 301, 449 N.Y.S.2d 168, 434 N.E.2d 237 ). " ‘In determining whether the trial court has responded meaningfully to the jury's request for further instruction, the factors to be evaluated are the form of the jury's question, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the supplemental instruction actually given, and the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant’ " ( People v. Williams , 150 A.D.3d 902, 904, 55 N.Y.S.3d 102, quoting People v. Nash , 83 A.D.3d 872, 873, 920 N.Y.S.2d 697 ; see People v. Almodovar , 62 N.Y.2d 126, 131–132, 476 N.Y.S.2d 95, 464 N.E.2d 463 ). Here, the court's supplemental instruction was a meaningful response to the jury's note and the defendant was not prejudiced by it (see People v. Almodovar , 62 N.Y.2d at 131–132, 476 N.Y.S.2d 95, 464 N.E.2d 463 ; People v. Williams , 150 A.D.3d at 904, 55 N.Y.S.3d 102 ).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in imposing restitution without conducting a hearing is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). We decline to review this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, MILLER and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.