People v. Lynch

• Citation: 88 N.Y.S.3d 424,166 A.D.3d 904
• Decision Date: 21 November 2018
• Docket Number: 2013–05910,Ind.No. 303/11
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. David LYNCH, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

166 A.D.3d 904
88 N.Y.S.3d 424

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
David LYNCH, Appellant.

2013–05910
Ind.No. 303/11

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

Argued—September 4, 2018
November 21, 2018

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Denise A. Corsi´ of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Anastasia Spanakos, Kayonia Whetstone, Merri Turk Lasky, and Kathryn Mullen of counsel), for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P. LEONARD B. AUSTIN SHERI S. ROMAN ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

88 N.Y.S.3d 426

DECISION & ORDER

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. The defendant's intent can be inferred from his 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. Heron, 130 A.D.3d 754, 754, 13 N.Y.S.3d 243 ; People v. Edwards, 120 A.D.3d 1435, 1435, 992 N.Y.S.2d 368 ; 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 CPL 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 ; 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 ).

We agree with the Supreme Court's denial of the defendant's request to charge the jury with respect to the defense of justification under the emergency doctrine. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was no reasonable view of the evidence supporting the elements of a justification defense (see Penal Law § 35.05[2] ; People v. Rodriguez, 16 N.Y.3d 341, 345, 921 N.Y.S.2d 628, 946 N.E.2d 726 ; People v. Craig, 78 N.Y.2d 616, 623, 578 N.Y.S.2d 471, 585 N.E.2d 783 ; People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299, 301, 456 N.Y.S.2d 677, 442 N.E.2d 1188 ).

The defendant contends that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial by the improper admission into evidence of excerpts of a recorded telephone call he made during his detention at Rikers Island Correctional Facility, the improper admission of a photograph of the victim while she was still alive, and certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting the recording of the telephone call, as the contents of the call were relevant to demonstrate the defendant's motive to kill the victim (see People v. Moore, 42 N.Y.2d 421, 428–429, 397 N.Y.S.2d 975, 366 N.E.2d 1330 ; People v. Boyd, 159 A.D.3d 1358, 1362, 73 N.Y.S.3d 301 ). The defendant's contention that the admission of a photograph of the victim taken while she was still alive was improper is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hibbert, 134 A.D.3d 957, 958, 22 N.Y.S.3d 115 ; People v. Texidor, 123 A.D.3d 746, 996 N.Y.S.2d 715 ). In any event, the contention is without merit, as the photograph was relevant to show the nature and extent of the victim's injuries and the defendant's intent to cause her death (see People v. Stevens, 76 N.Y.2d 833, 560 N.Y.S.2d 119, 559 N.E.2d 1278 ; People v. Texidor, 123 A.D.3d 746, 996 N.Y.S.2d 715 ; People v. Thomas, 99 A.D.3d 737, 738, 951 N.Y.S.2d 581 ). The defendant's contention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation were improper is, for the most part, unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89 ; People v. LaValle, 3 N.Y.3d 88, 116, 783 N.Y.S.2d 485, 817 N.E.2d 341 ; People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 839–840, 688...