People v. Raphael

• Decision Date: 02 September 2020
• Docket Number: 2017–08656,Ind. No. 349/16
• Citation: 186 A.D.3d 1262,127 N.Y.S.3d 918 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ishmail RAPHAEL, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

186 A.D.3d 1262

127 N.Y.S.3d 918 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,

v.Ishmail RAPHAEL, Appellant.

2017–08656

Ind. No. 349/16

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

Argued - June 4, 2020

September 2, 2020

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Martin B. Sawyer of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Mariana Zelig of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, BETSY BARROS, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Daniel Lewis, J.), rendered June 30, 2017, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his for-cause challenges to three prospective jurors (see CPL 270.20[1][b] ; People v. Crawford, 65 A.D.3d 694, 694–695, 884 N.Y.S.2d 481 ).

Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant preserved for appellate review his contention that the evidence was not legally sufficient to establish his guilt of robbery in the second degree (see CPL 470.05[2] ). However, 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 of robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. 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, 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 as to the counts of robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree 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 certain remarks made by the prosecutor during the opening statement and on summation require reversal is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant either failed to object to the remarks at issue or made only a general objection, and failed to make a timely motion for a mistrial on the specific grounds he now asserts on appeal (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89 ; People v. Willis, 165 A.D.3d 984, 985, 85 N.Y.S.3d 230 ). In any event, several of the challenged remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, fair response to the defense summation, or...