Opinion
2016–05678 Ind. No. 10274/14
01-30-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Terrell WILLIAMS, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Nao Terai of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Antara D. Kanth of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Nao Terai of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Antara D. Kanth of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Stephen A. Knopf, J.), rendered May 20, 2016, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ), which permitted the prosecutor to inquire about the defendant's prior conviction for attempted robbery in the event that the defendant decided to testify. Evidence of this conviction was probative of the defendant's credibility because it bore on his willingness to place his own interests above those of society (see People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292, 464 N.Y.S.2d 458, 451 N.E.2d 216 ; People v. Thomas, 8 A.D.3d 506, 778 N.Y.S.2d 523 ; People v. Cowan, 193 A.D.2d 753, 754, 598 N.Y.S.2d 987 ).
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 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, 348–349, 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, 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 contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by improper remarks made by the prosecutor during his summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 688 N.Y.S.2d 88, 710 N.E.2d 653 ; People v. Dunning, 148 A.D.3d 1047, 49 N.Y.S.3d 755 ; People v. Spencer, 87 A.D.3d 751, 753, 928 N.Y.S.2d 607, affd 20 N.Y.3d 954, 959 N.Y.S.2d 112, 982 N.E.2d 1245 ). In any event, this contention is without merit, since the comments alleged to be prejudicial were either fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, or a fair response to defense counsel's summation (see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109–110, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564 ; People v. Marcus, 112 A.D.3d 652, 975 N.Y.S.2d 771 ; People v. Rogers, 106 A.D.3d 1029, 965 N.Y.S.2d 361 ; People v. Birot, 99 A.D.3d 933, 952 N.Y.S.2d 293 ).
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., LEVENTHAL, MALTESE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.