People v. Taylor

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: People v. Taylor, 2015 NY Slip Op 8768, 133 A.D.3d 897, 19 N.Y.S.3d 433(Mem) (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
• Decision Date: 25 November 2015
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Devon TAYLOR, appellant.

133 A.D.3d 897

19 N.Y.S.3d 433 (Mem)

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 08768

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Devon TAYLOR, appellant.

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

Nov. 25, 2015.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastinof counsel), for appellant.

Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and Terrence F. Heller of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered September 7, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins,11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (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 of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (seePenal Law § 265.03[1][b]; § 265.15[4]; People v. Danielson,9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1; People v. Bleakley,69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672; People v. Vincent,80 A.D.3d 633, 634, 914 N.Y.S.2d 298).

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 at 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1; People v. Vincent,80 A.D.3d at 634, 914 N.Y.S.2d 298), 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 at 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; People v. Pelosi,128 A.D.3d 733, 6 N.Y.S.3d 493).

The defendant's arguments regarding the prosecutor's allegedly improper comments during summation are largely unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, most of those remarks were within the broad bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, a fair response to the defendant's summation, or fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v. Halm,81 N.Y.2d 819, 821, 595 N.Y.S.2d 380, 611 N.E.2d 281; People v. Galloway,54 N.Y.2d 396, 399, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885; People v. Ashwal,39 N.Y.2d 105, 109–110, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564; People v. Williams,123 A.D.3d 1152, 1152, 997 N.Y.S.2d 499, lv. granted 25 N.Y.3d 1173, 15 N.Y.S.3d 305, 36 N.E.3d 108). To the extent that any remaining challenged remarks were improper, they were not so egregious as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Williams,123 A.D.3d at 1152, 997 N.Y.S.2d 499).

ENG,...