People v. Bohn

• Decision Date: 06 October 2021
• Docket Number: 2014–04352,Ind. No. 1830/12
• Citation: 198 A.D.3d 669,155 N.Y.S.3d 185
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jason BOHN, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

198 A.D.3d 669
155 N.Y.S.3d 185

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Jason BOHN, appellant.

2014–04352
Ind. No. 1830/12

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—September 17, 2021
October 6, 2021

155 N.Y.S.3d 186

Patricia Pazner, New York, N.Y. (Mark W. Vorkink of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill and Christopher J. Blira–Koessler of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

198 A.D.3d 669

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Michael Aloise, J.), rendered April 15, 2014, convicting him of murder in the first degree, criminal contempt in the first degree, and tampering with physical evidence, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant preserved for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction of murder in the first degree (see CPL 470.05[2] ). 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 beyond a reasonable doubt (see

155 N.Y.S.3d 187

People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ). 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 at 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 with respect to the conviction of murder in the first 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 ).

Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his challenges for cause to three prospective jurors is preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court

198 A.D.3d 670

providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's for-cause challenges to these prospective jurors (see CPL 270.20[1][b] ; People v. Raphael, 186 A.D.3d 1262, 1263, 127 N.Y.S.3d 918 ; People v. Brims, 145 A.D.3d 1025, 45 N.Y.S.3d 488 ; see also People v. Arnold, 96 N.Y.2d 358, 363, 729 N.Y.S.2d 51, 753 N.E.2d 846 ).

The defendant's challenge to the Supreme Court's determination qualifying the People's rebuttal witness as an expert is preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in qualifying the witness as an expert, as her foundational testimony demonstrated that she possessed the skill, training, knowledge, or experience necessary to proffer an opinion on forensic psychology (see People v. Flores, 153 A.D.3d 182, 196, 62 N.Y.S.3d 68, affd 32 N.Y.3d 1087, 89 N.Y.S.3d 673, 114 N.E.3d 141 ; People v. Washington, 108 A.D.3d 576, 577, 968 N.Y.S.2d 184 ). Contrary to the defendant's further contention, the expert's purportedly flawed understanding of extreme emotional disturbance went to the weight, not the admissibility, of the testimony (see People v. Whittemore, 185 A.D.3d 1528, 125...