Opinion
2012-05-15
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Edward WHITNEY, appellant.
Jason M. Bernheimer, Katonah, N.Y., for appellant. Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Lois Cullen Valerio and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel; Frank Marallo on the brief), for respondent.
Jason M. Bernheimer, Katonah, N.Y., for appellant. Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Lois Cullen Valerio and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel; Frank Marallo on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wetzel, J.), rendered May 7, 2010, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, 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 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Additionally, 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, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828; 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 challenge to certain supplemental jury instructions is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hyland, 45 A.D.3d 781, 847 N.Y.S.2d 201; People v. Lewis, 247 A.D.2d 555, 668 N.Y.S.2d 916). In any event, the Supreme Court responded meaningfully to the jury's inquiries ( see People v. Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 131, 476 N.Y.S.2d 95, 464 N.E.2d 463; People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 301–303, 449 N.Y.S.2d 168, 434 N.E.2d 237, cert. denied 459 U.S. 847, 103 S.Ct. 104, 74 L.Ed.2d 93; People v. Hayes, 48 A.D.3d 831, 851 N.Y.S.2d 365), and its response, which was in complete accord with defense counsel's suggestions, did not prejudice the defendant.