Opinion
2017–10075 Ind. No. 1402/16
07-31-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Quanne TOMLINSON, Appellant.
Patrick Michael Megaro, Forest Hills, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Daniel Bresnahan and Hilda Mortensen of counsel), for respondent.
Patrick Michael Megaro, Forest Hills, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Daniel Bresnahan and Hilda Mortensen of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert A. McDonald, J.), rendered August 24, 2017, convicting him of criminal contempt in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the Supreme Court's denial of the defendant's Batson challenge (see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 ). The defendant failed to establish that the race-neutral reasons proffered for the peremptory challenges at issue were pretextual (see People v. Smocum, 99 N.Y.2d 418, 422–423, 757 N.Y.S.2d 239, 786 N.E.2d 1275 ; People v. Francis, 155 A.D.3d 1059, 1061, 66 N.Y.S.3d 29 ; People v. Ball, 11 A.D.3d 904, 905, 782 N.Y.S.2d 228 ; People v. Santos, 286 A.D.2d 449, 450, 730 N.Y.S.2d 237 ).
The defendant's contentions that he was deprived of his due process right to a fair trial by the admission of uncharged crime evidence and that the Supreme Court erred in not issuing a limiting instruction to the jury regarding the use of that evidence are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Anselmo, 164 A.D.3d 1462, 1463, 84 N.Y.S.3d 214 ; People v. Rivera, 116 A.D.3d 986, 987, 983 N.Y.S.2d 856 ; People v. Rios, 96 A.D.3d 978, 946 N.Y.S.2d 499 ; People v. Torres, 96 A.D.3d 881, 881–882, 946 N.Y.S.2d 225 ). In any event, we agree with the court's determination to admit the contested evidence. The evidence was inextricably interwoven with the narrative of events leading up to the defendant's arrest and provided necessary background information (see People v. Johnson, 137 A.D.3d 811, 813, 26 N.Y.S.3d 356 ; People v. Genyard, 84 A.D.3d 1398, 1400, 923 N.Y.S.2d 883 ; People v. Thomas, 12 A.D.3d 383, 384, 786 N.Y.S.2d 180 ; People v. Samlal, 292 A.D.2d 400, 738 N.Y.S.2d 594 ; People v. Desir, 285 A.D.2d 655, 728 N.Y.S.2d 392 ). Further, the probative value of the evidence outweighed the risk of prejudice to the defendant (see People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808 ; People v. Wright, 160 A.D.3d 667, 668, 74 N.Y.S.3d 302 ).
The defendant's contention that the prosecution's late disclosure of certain evidence, which the defendant claims constituted a violation of People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881, warranted the preclusion of testimony pertaining to that material is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, the defendant failed to demonstrate that he was substantially prejudiced by the late disclosure and, thus, reversal is not warranted (see People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 940, 528 N.Y.S.2d 813, 524 N.E.2d 134 ; People v. Fermin, 150 A.D.3d 876, 878–879, 55 N.Y.S.3d 286 ; People v. Smalls, 145 A.D.3d 802, 43 N.Y.S.3d 123 ; People v. Page, 296 A.D.2d 427, 745 N.Y.S.2d 193 ; People v. Atkinson, 249 A.D.2d 317, 670 N.Y.S.2d 354 ).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 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. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). 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, 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 ).
LEVENTHAL, J.P., COHEN, HINDS–RADIX and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.