People v. Wiggs

• Decision Date: 01 July 2015
• Docket Number: 2013-08055
• Citation: 130 A.D.3d 659,14 N.Y.S.3d 53,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05707
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Iquan WIGGS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

130 A.D.3d 659
14 N.Y.S.3d 53
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05707

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent
v.
Iquan WIGGS, appellant.

2013-08055

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

July 1, 2015.

14 N.Y.S.3d 53

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Elizabeth Budnitz of counsel), for appellant.

14 N.Y.S.3d 54

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Daniel Bresnahan, and Deborah E. Wassel of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SANDRA L. SGROI, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

Opinion

130 A.D.3d 659

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lewis, J.), rendered August 6, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and menacing in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of robbery in the second degree and menacing in the third degree because the prosecution failed to establish his identity as the perpetrator of those crimes is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2 ]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Delgado, 109 A.D.3d 483, 970 N.Y.S.2d 84 ). In any event, 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 ), it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Delgado, 109 A.D.3d 483, 970 N.Y.S.2d 84 ; People v. Amico, 78 A.D.3d 1190, 913 N.Y.S.2d 675 ). 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 both crimes 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, however, correctly contends that the trial court's handling of a jury note failed to comply with CPL 310.30, in accordance with the procedure set forth in People v....