People v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 24 September 2014
• Citation: 992 N.Y.S.2d 368,120 A.D.3d 1435,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 06328
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Lee Anderson EDWARDS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

120 A.D.3d 1435

992 N.Y.S.2d 368

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 06328

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Lee Anderson EDWARDS, appellant.

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

Sept. 24, 2014.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Winston McIntosh and De Nice Powell of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered April 1, 2011, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (three 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 establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to cause the death of the victim. Here, intent can be inferred from the defendant's conduct and the surrounding circumstances ( see People v. Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d 296, 301, 392 N.Y.S.2d 412, 360 N.E.2d 1094; People v. Bryant, 39 A.D.3d 768, 769, 834 N.Y.S.2d 305).

Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see 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 factfinder'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; 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 the People's summation remarks constituted reversible error is largely 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. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19–20, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919; People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943, 944, 620 N.Y.S.2d 814, 644 N.E.2d 1370; People v. Williams, 46 N.Y.2d 1070, 1071, 416 N.Y.S.2d 792, 390 N.E.2d 299). In any event, the summation comments alleged to be inflammatory and prejudicial were either fair comment on the evidence ( see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109–111, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564), responsive to arguments and theories presented in the defense summation ( see People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885; People v. Crawford, 54 A.D.3d 961, 863 N.Y.S.2d 830), stricken, thereby dissipating any prejudice resulting from the improper comment ( see People v. Berg, 59 N.Y.2d 294, 464 N.Y.S.2d 703, 451 N.E.2d 450; People v. Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179, 187, 397 N.Y.S.2d 619, 366 N.E.2d 279; People v. Gouveia, 88 A.D.3d 814, 815–816, 930 N.Y.S.2d 677), or constituted harmless error ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; People v. Persaud, 98 A.D.3d 527, 529, 949 N.Y.S.2d 431).

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor called a witness who, when asked if she recognized anyone in the courtroom, responded that she could not remember, is without merit ( see People v. Berg, 59 N.Y.2d at 298, 464 N.Y.S.2d 703, 451 N.E.2d 450; People v. Berry, 110 A.D.3d 1002, 1002, 973 N.Y.S.2d 338; People v. Alston, 71 A.D.3d 684, 685, 896 N.Y.S.2d 410; People v....