BROWN, JR., WILLIE L., PEOPLE v ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1049
    KA 13-02163
    PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    WILLIE BROWN, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PHILIP ROTHSCHILD OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE
    OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony F.
    Aloi, J.), rendered September 4, 2013. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree and
    criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
    upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law
    § 120.05 [2]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree
    (§ 265.01 [2]). Defendant’s conviction arose from an incident in
    which he cut the victim’s face after the victim failed to pay
    defendant $15 allegedly owed in connection with a drug transaction.
    Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court did not err in
    permitting the victim to testify with respect to the nature of the
    debt inasmuch as the court, in engaging in the requisite two-part
    inquiry, properly determined that the evidence was material with
    respect to the relationship of the parties and motive and that the
    probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect (see
    generally People v Cass, 18 NY3d 553, 560). In any event, following
    the court’s curative instruction, “defense counsel neither objected
    further nor requested a mistrial, and thus . . . the curative
    instructions must be deemed to have corrected the error to the
    defendant’s satisfaction” (People v Elian, 129 AD3d 1635, 1636, lv
    denied 26 NY3d 1087 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
    We reject defendant’s further contention that the court erred in
    denying his Batson objections to the prosecutor’s exercise of
    peremptory challenges for two prospective jurors. We note at the
    outset that defendant concedes that the court did not err in denying
    his Batson objection with respect to the exercise of a peremptory
    -2-                             1049
    KA 13-02163
    challenge for a third prospective juror. With respect to the first
    prospective juror, the prosecutor explained that the prospective juror
    failed to disclose that she knew someone who had been convicted of a
    crime, i.e., her uncle; that some of her answers led the prosecutor to
    believe that she would not be fair to the victim; and that she knew
    the Chief of the Syracuse Police Department, who had well-publicized
    disputes with the District Attorney. The court’s credibility
    determinations with respect to Batson objections are entitled to great
    deference (see People v Luciano, 10 NY3d 499, 505), and we will not
    disturb the court’s determination that the prosecutor provided race-
    neutral explanations for the peremptory challenge. With respect to
    the second prospective juror, we conclude that the court properly
    determined that the prosecutor provided a race-neutral explanation for
    the challenge by explaining that the prospective juror had previously
    worked with troubled young adults, which might cause her to be biased
    toward defendant (see People v Holloway, 71 AD3d 1486, 1487, lv denied
    15 NY3d 774).
    Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as
    charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we
    conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence
    (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Contrary to defendant’s
    contention, the testimony of the victim and his girlfriend, who was an
    eyewitness, was not incredible as a matter of law (see People v
    Hailey, 128 AD3d 1415, 1417, lv denied 26 NY3d 929). Moreover, the
    jury was entitled to credit the testimony of the victim and his
    girlfriend that they had a long-standing relationship with defendant
    and that defendant went to the victim’s home and cut his face after he
    failed to pay defendant $15, while rejecting the testimony of defense
    witnesses that defendant did not know the victim well and that he was
    not in the vicinity of the victim’s home at the time of the crime. We
    perceive no basis to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations
    (see People v Brown, 140 AD3d 1740, 1740).
    The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
    Entered:   December 23, 2016                       Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 13-02163

Filed Date: 12/23/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/23/2016