PEOPLE v. MILES (2020)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted, inter alia, of burglary in the first degree as a sexually motivated felony, and related offenses, for crimes he committed against the complainant in a dwelling in Brooklyn.  Both the complainant and the defendant were tenants in separate rooms in the dwelling, a single-family house.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the Supreme Court's charge regarding burglary in the first degree as a sexually motivated felony (see CPL 470.05[2]).  In any event, the “court's charge, taken as a whole, conveyed to the jury the correct standard” (People v. Drake, 7 N.Y.3d 28, 32, 817 N.Y.S.2d 583, 850 N.E.2d 630;  see People v. Fields, 87 N.Y.2d 821, 823, 637 N.Y.S.2d 355, 660 N.E.2d 1134).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the convictions (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), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to each of the convictions.  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, 348, 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, 411, 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 as to each of the convictions was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

The defendant was provided with meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the Supreme Court's admission at trial of the complainant's hearsay statement deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial is without merit.  Although the court should have sustained the defendant's objection to the complainant's hearsay testimony on direct examination that the owner of the premises at issue told her that the defendant had been evicted (see generally Nucci v. Proper, 95 N.Y.2d 597, 602, 721 N.Y.S.2d 593, 744 N.E.2d 128;  People v. Nieves, 67 N.Y.2d 125, 131, 501 N.Y.S.2d 1, 492 N.E.2d 109), the court thereafter instructed the jury that the defendant was a tenant of the premises and as such, had a right to be in the common areas of the premises.  Under the circumstances of this case, the error did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial and was otherwise harmless, since there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and no significant probability that the error might have contributed to the defendant's convictions (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).

The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.

CHAMBERS, J.P., AUSTIN, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.