People v. Seignious

• Decision Date: 19 February 2014
• Citation: 980 N.Y.S.2d 561,114 A.D.3d 883,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 01200
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Sean SEIGNIOUS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

114 A.D.3d 883
980 N.Y.S.2d 561
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 01200

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Sean SEIGNIOUS, appellant.

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

Feb. 19, 2014.

[980 N.Y.S.2d 562]

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Karla Lato of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), rendered August 10, 2011, convicting him of rape in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[980 N.Y.S.2d 563]

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support his convictions is not preserved for appellate review, as defense counsel merely made a general motion for a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People's case ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491–492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946;People v. Devers, 82 A.D.3d 1261, 920 N.Y.S.2d 177). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( 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 his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 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. denied542 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 as to all of the convictions 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 loss or destruction of evidence prior to trial does not necessarily require imposition of a sanction ( see People v. Haupt, 71 N.Y.2d 929, 931, 528 N.Y.S.2d 808, 524 N.E.2d 129). Where, as here, the defendant claims that the loss of evidence deprived him of a fair trial, “the...