PEOPLE v. WRIGHT (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (John T. Hecht, J.), rendered March 23, 2018, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and stalking in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial when the Supreme Court admitted into evidence a photograph of the victim taken after the subject crime is without merit.  “Photographic evidence ‘should be excluded only if its sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant’ ” (People v. Branch, 224 A.D.3d 919, 921, 206 N.Y.S.3d 168, quoting People v. Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, 370, 345 N.Y.S.2d 482, 298 N.E.2d 637).  “When an inflammatory photograph is relevant to a material issue at trial, the court has broad discretion to determine whether the probative value of the photograph outweighs any prejudice to the defendant” (People v. Abellard, 212 A.D.3d 842, 843, 181 N.Y.S.3d 663;  see People v. Oliver, 193 A.D.3d 1081, 1083, 146 N.Y.S.3d 666).  Here, the photograph was relevant to material issues in the case, and the photograph was “ ‘not so inflammatory as to deprive [the defendant] of a fair trial’ ” (People v. Branch, 224 A.D.3d at 921, 206 N.Y.S.3d 168, quoting People v. Abellard, 212 A.D.3d at 843, 181 N.Y.S.3d 663).  Thus, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting the photograph.

Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the New York Constitution because, viewed in totality, the record reflects that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146–147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).  The defendant also was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674).

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

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.

DUFFY, J.P., WOOTEN, LANDICINO and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.