People v. Roman

• Decision Date: 03 May 2011
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ramon ROMAN, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

84 A.D.3d 840

921 N.Y.S.2d 871

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Ramon ROMAN, appellant.

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

May 3, 2011.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Diane R. Eisner of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered February 4, 2009, convicting him of murderin the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of murder in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 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 fact-finder'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).The evidence presented at trial supported a finding that the defendant was not acting “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse” when he stabbed and killed the victim (Penal Law § 125.25[1][a]; see People v. Reynart, 71 A.D.3d 1057, 1058, 900 N.Y.S.2d 65;People v. Pallonetti, 62 A.D.3d 1027, 1028, 878 N.Y.S.2d 910).

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in limiting certain testimony of the defense expert is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit ( see People v. Macuil, 67 A.D.3d 1025, 888 N.Y.S.2d 764;People v. Martin, 33 A.D.3d 1024, 824 N.Y.S.2d 107).

DILLON, J.P., COVELLO, ENG and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.