PEOPLE v. HAIGH (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vincent M. Del Giudice, J.), rendered January 10, 2019, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to disprove his justification defense is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]).  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;  People v. Bowen, 196 A.D.3d 501, 502, 149 N.Y.S.3d 256), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Reneau, 209 A.D.3d 677, 677, 176 N.Y.S.3d 98;  People v. Akbar, 169 A.D.3d 708, 709, 93 N.Y.S.3d 366).  Accordingly, the conviction of manslaughter in the first degree was supported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v. Morales, 201 A.D.3d 819, 819, 160 N.Y.S.3d 100).

Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5];  People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Ford, 233 A.D.3d 891, 893, 221 N.Y.S.3d 689;  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 jury's rejection of the defendant's justification defense and the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Reneau, 209 A.D.3d at 678, 176 N.Y.S.3d 98;  People v. Akbar, 169 A.D.3d at 709, 93 N.Y.S.3d 366).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, while “ ‘a single error may constitute ineffective assistance if the error is sufficiently egregious and prejudicial as to compromise the defendant's right to a fair trial’ ” (People v. Mohan, 215 A.D.3d 766, 767, 187 N.Y.S.3d 289, quoting People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 [alterations omitted];  see People v. Tirado, 221 A.D.3d 834, 834–835, 200 N.Y.S.3d 82), defense counsel's error in opening the door to the admission of the defendant's medical records did not deprive him of the effective assistance of counsel under the New York Constitution.  Viewing defense counsel's performance in totality, counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Russell, 216 A.D.3d 1111, 1112, 189 N.Y.S.3d 704;  People v. Tiger, 207 A.D.3d 574, 574, 171 N.Y.S.3d 169).  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, 694, 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).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

LASALLE, P.J., CONNOLLY, VENTURA and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.