PEOPLE v. ROBINSON (2009)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), rendered May 17, 2006, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), 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's contention that he was denied a fair trial by the People's late disclosure of three witnesses' statements is without merit.   To the extent that these statements constituted Brady material (see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215), the People turned them over to the defense in time for the defense to use them effectively (see People v. Myron, 28 A.D.3d 681, 814 N.Y.S.2d 198;  People v. Gardner, 12 A.D.3d 525, 785 N.Y.S.2d 462;  People v. Maddery, 282 A.D.2d 761, 724 N.Y.S.2d 346;  People v. Candelario, 260 A.D.2d 391, 687 N.Y.S.2d 435).

 The trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the medical examiner to give expert testimony regarding the likely position of the shooter in the vehicle where the murder occurred based on the injuries the victim suffered (see People v. Lee, 96 N.Y.2d 157, 162, 726 N.Y.S.2d 361, 750 N.E.2d 63;  People v. Menendez, 50 A.D.3d 1061, 1062, 856 N.Y.S.2d 647;  People v. South, 47 A.D.3d 734, 735-736, 849 N.Y.S.2d 603).

 The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946;  People v. Lane, 7 N.Y.3d 888, 889, 826 N.Y.S.2d 599, 860 N.E.2d 61).   In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 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.   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, 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, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;  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).

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 without merit.