People v. Holden

• Decision Date: 01 March 2011
• Citation: 82 A.D.3d 792,917 N.Y.S.2d 900
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Stephen HOLDEN, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

917 N.Y.S.2d 900

82 A.D.3d 792

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Stephen HOLDEN, appellant.

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

March 1, 2011.

Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Bonnie C. Brennan of counsel), for appellant.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered April 22, 2009, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and 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, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct anindependent 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).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor's redirect examination of the detective who witnessed the defendant drop the firearm did not impermissibly bolster the detective's testimony by introducing a prior consistent statement from the detective's testimony at the defendant's prior trial. The trial court properly allowed the prosecutor to introduce a part of the detective's prior testimony on redirect examination for the purpose of explaining and clarifying a part of the detective's prior testimony that was introduced on cross-examination ( see People v. Ochoa, 14 N.Y.3d 180, 186-187, 899 N.Y.S.2d 66, 925 N.E.2d 868; People v. Torre, 42 N.Y.2d 1036, 1037, 399 N.Y.S.2d 203, 369 N.E.2d 759; People v. Melendez, 51 A.D.3d 1040, 861 N.Y.S.2d 64; People v. Williams, 43 A.D.3d 414, 840...