The People, etc., respondent, v. Lee Anderson Edwards, appellant. (2014)

Argued—August 7, 2014

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered April 1, 2011, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to cause the death of the victim.   Here, intent can be inferred from the defendant's conduct and the surrounding circumstances (see People v. Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d 296, 301;  People v. Bryant, 39 AD3d 768, 769).

Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 NY3d 383;  People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).   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 NY3d 633).

The defendant's contention that the People's summation remarks constituted reversible error is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838;  People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19–20;  People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943, 944;  People v. Williams, 46 N.Y.2d 1070, 1071).   In any event, the summation comments alleged to be inflammatory and prejudicial were either fair comment on the evidence (see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109–111), responsive to arguments and theories presented in the defense summation (see People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396;  People v. Crawford, 54 AD3d 961), stricken, thereby dissipating any prejudice resulting from the improper comment (see People v. Berg, 59 N.Y.2d 294;  People v. Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179, 187;  People v. Gouveia, 88 AD3d 814, 815–816), or constituted harmless error (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242;  People v. Persaud, 98 AD3d 527, 529).

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor called a witness who, when asked if she recognized anyone in the courtroom, responded that she could not remember, is without merit (see People v. Berg, 59 N.Y.2d at 298;  People v. Berry, 110 AD3d 1002, 1002;  People v. Alston, 71 AD3d 684, 685;  People v. Torres, 141 A.D.2d 682).

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

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d at 242).

SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, AUSTIN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court