People v. Byrd

• Decision Date: 16 April 2014
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Cory BYRD, appellant.

116 A.D.3d 875
983 N.Y.S.2d 406
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 02604

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Cory BYRD, appellant.

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

April 16, 2014.

Warren S. Hecht, Forest Hills, N.Y., for appellant.

David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered March 8, 2012, convicting him of murder in the second degree and tampering with physical evidence (two counts), 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, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant's guilt of the crimes of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[2] ) and two counts of tampering with physical evidence (Penal Law § 215.40[2] ). Moreover, 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, 348, 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,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 find that the verdict of guilt as to those crimes 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 County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting into evidence 17 autopsy photographs of the

[983 N.Y.S.2d 407]

victim. The challenged photographs were neither excessively gruesome nor introduced for the sole purpose of arousing the jurors' passions and prejudicing the defendant ( see People v. Wood, 79 N.Y.2d 958, 960, 582 N.Y.S.2d 992, 591 N.E.2d 1178;People v. Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, 369–370, 345 N.Y.S.2d 482, 298 N.E.2d 637,cert. denied 416 U.S. 905, 94 S.Ct. 1609, 40 L.Ed.2d 110;People v. Harrington, 88 A.D.3d 817, 930 N.Y.S.2d 897;People v. Fletcher, 84 A.D.3d 1265, 1266, 923 N.Y.S.2d 858). Rather, they were relevant to a material issue at trial and also to elucidate the testimony of the medical examiner regarding the cause of death ( see People v. Harrington, 88 A.D.3d 817, 930 N.Y.S.2d 897;People v. Prowse, 60...