Opinion
2011-04-19
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Kevin TOWNSEND, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Keith Dolan, and Marie John–Drigo of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Keith Dolan, and Marie John–Drigo of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered April 7, 2009, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of murder in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491–492, 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, including the element of intent, beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v. Bryant, 36 A.D.3d 517, 517, 828 N.Y.S.2d 360,People v. Smith, 35 A.D.3d 635, 829 N.Y.S.2d 120;People v. Francis, 209 A.D.2d 539, 540, 619 N.Y.S.2d 71). Additionally, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 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. 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 the conviction of murder in the second degree 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 contention that the trial court's charge to the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter in the first degree was insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d at 491–492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946;People v. Shakur, 249 A.D.2d 424, 425, 671 N.Y.S.2d 137). In any event, the charge was sufficient, as it adequately apprised the jury of the applicable law ( see People v. Calderon, 182 A.D.2d 770, 582 N.Y.S.2d 769).