People v. Ransom

• Decision Date: 27 March 2019
• Docket Number: 2017–05082,Ind. No. 287/16
• Citation: 97 N.Y.S.3d 283,170 A.D.3d 1199
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Kenneth RANSOM, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

170 A.D.3d 1199
97 N.Y.S.3d 283

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Kenneth RANSOM, Appellant.

2017–05082
Ind. No. 287/16

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

Argued - January 7, 2019
March 27, 2019

N. Scott Banks, Hempstead, N.Y. (Tammy Feman and Gianpaolo Ciocco of counsel), for appellant.

Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R. Sternberg and Barbara Kornblau of counsel; Joseph Ferencik on the brief), for respondent.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RUTH C. BALKIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

170 A.D.3d 1199

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

170 A.D.3d 1200

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 beyond a reasonable doubt (see 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 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 County Court should have granted his motion for a mistrial based upon the admission of certain testimony of a police officer responsible for performing field sobriety tests is only partially preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion (see People v. Licausi, 122 A.D.3d 771, 773, 996 N.Y.S.2d 188 ; People v. Reaves, 112 A.D.3d 746, 747–748, 976 N.Y.S.2d 228 ;

97 N.Y.S.3d 285

People v. Brown, 76 A.D.3d 532, 533, 904 N.Y.S.2d 911 ; People v. Arena, 70 A.D.3d 1044, 1046–1047, 895 N.Y.S.2d 514 ).

The defendant's contention that the County Court failed to meaningfully respond to a jury note requesting clarification is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Clark, 28 N.Y.3d 556, 566, 46 N.Y.S.3d 817, 69 N.E.3d 604 ; People v. Elder, 152 A.D.3d 787, 798–790, 59 N.Y.S.3d 134 ) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v. Robinson, 163 A.D.3d 1002, 1002, 81 N.Y.S.3d 512 ; People v. Mattison, 162 A.D.3d 905, 907, 79 N.Y.S.3d 274 ; People v. Mancusi, 161 A.D.3d 775, 776, 76 N.Y.S.3d 574 ; People v. Elder, 152 A.D.3d at 798–790, 59 N.Y.S.3d 134; People v. Williams, 150 A.D.3d 902, 904, 55 N.Y.S.3d 102 ).

The defendant's contention that the verdict is repugnant is not preserved for appellate review (see People v....