PEOPLE v. MACAS (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Charles S. Lopresto, J.), rendered January 9, 2020, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, rape in the third degree, and criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence.  “Weight of the evidence review requires a court first to determine whether an acquittal would not have been unreasonable” (People v. Ford, 233 A.D.3d 891, 893, 221 N.Y.S.3d 689 [alteration and internal quotation marks omitted];  see People v. Abellard, 189 A.D.3d 1605, 1606, 138 N.Y.S.3d 151).  An acquittal would not have been unreasonable here, so this Court “must weigh conflicting testimony, review any rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and evaluate the strength of such conclusions” (People v. Branch, 186 A.D.3d 1705, 1706, 130 N.Y.S.3d 834 [internal quotation marks omitted]).  “Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the court then decides whether the jury was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” (People v. Abellard, 189 A.D.3d at 1606, 138 N.Y.S.3d 151 [internal quotation marks omitted]).  However, “[g]reat deference is accorded to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor” (People v. Ford, 233 A.D.3d at 893, 221 N.Y.S.3d 689;  see People v. Ruiz, 228 A.D.3d 785, 785, 213 N.Y.S.3d 172).  Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Perez, 168 A.D.3d 988, 988, 92 N.Y.S.3d 106).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the New York Constitution, since, viewing defense counsel's performance in its totality, counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Debellis, 40 N.Y.3d 431, 436, 202 N.Y.S.3d 740, 225 N.E.3d 859).  Further, the defendant 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 defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in allowing the People to confer with a witness during trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Larregui, 164 A.D.3d 1622, 1624, 83 N.Y.S.3d 784) and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Branch, 83 N.Y.2d 663, 667, 612 N.Y.S.2d 365, 634 N.E.2d 966;  Matter of Isaiah D., 127 A.D.3d 1184, 1185, 7 N.Y.S.3d 578).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

BARROS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WAN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.