From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Samuel

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Mar 7, 2018
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 1487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

2016-05083

03-07-2018

The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Roshan Samuel, appellant.

Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP, White Plains, NY (Nina Y. Lee of counsel), for appellant. Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Christine DiSalvo and William C. Milaccio of counsel), for respondent.


COLLEEN D. DUFFY FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ. (Ind. No. 15-00263)

Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP, White Plains, NY (Nina Y. Lee of counsel), for appellant.

Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Christine DiSalvo and William C. Milaccio of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Robert A. Neary, J.), rendered April 20, 2016, convicting him of disseminating indecent material to minors in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of disseminating indecent material to minors in the first degree (two counts) 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 NY3d 342), 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 NY3d 383; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilty of disseminating indecent material to minors in the first degree (two counts) was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court properly limited the scope of the defendant's cross-examination of the victim (see CPL 60.43). Moreover, the court's evidentiary rulings were proper in all respects.

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur. ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court


Summaries of

People v. Samuel

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Mar 7, 2018
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 1487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

People v. Samuel

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Roshan Samuel…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Mar 7, 2018

Citations

2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 1487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)