People v. Samaroo

Mar 30, 2016
2013-10699
Versions:137 A.D.3d 1308
27 N.Y.S.3d 391
2016 NY Slip Op 02385

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 160.10 [1], [2] [a]; People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]; People v Walters, 69 AD3d 768, 768-769 [2010]). 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 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]). 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, 644 [2006]).

In addition, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s request for a missing witness charge, as there was no evidence that the uncalled witnesses would provide noncumulative testimony (see People v Edwards, 14 NY3d 733, 735 [2010]; People v Stewart, 96 AD3d 880, 881 [2012]). Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Barros, JJ., concur.