PEOPLE v. STREAT (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Alexander Jeong, J.), rendered November 21, 2016, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted, inter alia, of murder in the second degree based upon his conduct of shooting the victim in the head and causing his death.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his intent to kill the victim 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. Torres, 177 A.D.3d 579, 580, 113 N.Y.S.3d 707).  In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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 beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Laufer, 187 A.D.3d 1052, 1053, 133 N.Y.S.3d 592;  People v. Velazquez, 100 A.D.3d 1504, 1506, 953 N.Y.S.2d 802).  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, 348, 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 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. Serra, 217 A.D.3d 971, 971, 191 N.Y.S.3d 738).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his request for an adjournment to retain private counsel, as it was made on the eve of trial and he had had a reasonable opportunity to retain counsel of his own choosing before requesting an adjournment for that purpose (see People v. Arroyave, 49 N.Y.2d 264, 271–272, 425 N.Y.S.2d 282, 401 N.E.2d 393;  People v. McGhee, 205 A.D.3d 930, 931, 166 N.Y.S.3d 598;  People v. Campbell, 54 A.D.3d 959, 863 N.Y.S.2d 827).  Moreover, there were no “exigent or compelling circumstances” warranting an adjournment (People v. Arroyave, 49 N.Y.2d at 271, 425 N.Y.S.2d 282, 401 N.E.2d 393).

The defendant's challenge to the admission into evidence of a photograph depicting, inter alia, a pool of blood from the decedent is without merit.  The photograph was probative of essential elements of the count of murder in the second degree, including intent (see People v. Stevens, 76 N.Y.2d 833, 560 N.Y.S.2d 119, 559 N.E.2d 1278;  People v. Pope, 253 A.D.2d 443, 676 N.Y.S.2d 627).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

IANNACCI, J.P., CHAMBERS, VOUTSINAS and VENTURA, JJ., concur.