Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The People, etc., respondent, v. Kevin Townsend, appellant.
Argued—March 28, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered April 7, 2009, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third 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 support his conviction of murder in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491–492). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of that crime, including the element of intent, beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Bryant, 36 AD3d 517, 517, People v. Smith, 35 AD3d 635; People v. Francis, 209 A.D.2d 539, 540). Additionally, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to the conviction of murder in the second degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The defendant's contention that the trial court's charge to the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter in the first degree was insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 NY3d at 491–492; People v. Shakur, 249 A.D.2d 424, 425). In any event, the charge was sufficient, as it adequately apprised the jury of the applicable law (see People v. Calderon, 182 A.D.2d 770).
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2009–03845 (Ind.No. 2159 /07)
Decided: April 19, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)