midpage

People v. JohnsonPeople v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jul 7, 2009
Reporters:
,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation were improper (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Rodari, 2 AD3d 756, 756-757 [2003]; People v Scott, 267 AD2d 259, 260 [1999]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), 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 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). 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 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see CPL 470.15 [2] [c]; [6] [b]; 470.20 [6]; People v Thompson, 60 NY2d 513, 519 [1983]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Balkin and Austin, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Johnson
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Jul 7, 2009
Citations: 64 A.D.3d 616; 881 N.Y.S.2d 326
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
Log In