Opinion
06-29-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ramell SAMS, appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Elizabeth Isaacs and Lawrence T. Hausman of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and Gamaliel Marrero of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Elizabeth Isaacs and Lawrence T. Hausman of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and Gamaliel Marrero of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered March 26, 2013, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to move for a trial order of dismissal specifically directed at the errors he now claims (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Carncross, 14 N.Y.3d 319, 324–325, 901 N.Y.S.2d 112, 927 N.E.2d 532 ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 62, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329 ; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 ; People v. Pitre, 108 A.D.3d 643, 643, 968 N.Y.S.2d 585 ). 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 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 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court's Molineux ruling (see People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286 ) constituted a provident exercise of discretion. The evidence at issue was admissible to establish the defendant's motive, and its probative value exceeded the potential for prejudice to the defendant (see People v. Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 16, 19, 874 N.Y.S.2d 866, 903 N.E.2d 263 ; People v. Nanand, 137 A.D.3d 945, 947, 26 N.Y.S.3d 585 ; People v. Johnson, 137 A.D.3d 811, 26 N.Y.S.3d 356 ; People v. Nicholas, 113 A.D.3d 701, 978 N.Y.S.2d 695 ).
The defendant's claim that the prosecutor violated the Supreme Court's Molineux ruling is largely unpreserved for appellate review because, in most instances, the defendant failed to object to the remarks at issue (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, to the extent that such evidence was admitted in error, the error was harmless (see People v. Arafet, 13 N.Y.3d 460, 468, 892 N.Y.S.2d 812, 920 N.E.2d 919 ; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 ).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in permitting two of the People's witnesses to testify regarding out-of-court photo identifications is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, does not require reversal (see People v. Lassiter, 74 A.D.3d 1094, 902 N.Y.S.2d 396 ).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting into evidence a photograph of the defendant since its sole purpose was not to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant (see People v. Wood, 79 N.Y.2d 958, 960, 582 N.Y.S.2d 992, 591 N.E.2d 1178 ; People v. Ross, 112 A.D.3d 972, 973, 977 N.Y.S.2d 93 ; People v. Chandler, 51 A.D.3d 941, 942, 858 N.Y.S.2d 753 ; People v. Acevedo, 221 A.D.2d 550, 550, 633 N.Y.S.2d 822 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 86, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.