Opinion
08-24-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ronell JONES, appellant.
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant. James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Laurie Sapakoff and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant.
James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Laurie Sapakoff and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Warhit, J.), rendered October 21, 2014, convicting him of murder in the second degree (six counts) and attempted murder in the second degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2 ]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ). 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 of murder in the second degree (six counts) (see Penal Law § 125.25[1], [3] ) and attempted murder in the second degree (four counts) (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25[1] ), based upon an acting-in-concert theory (see Penal Law § 20.00 ), 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 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 ; 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 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 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting into evidence certain photographs depicting the victims' bodies and the crime scene. “Photographic evidence ‘should be excluded only if its sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant’ ” (People v. Thompson, 108 A.D.3d 732, 733, 969 N.Y.S.2d 168, quoting People v. Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, 370, 345 N.Y.S.2d 482, 298 N.E.2d 637 ; see People v. Valenko, 126 A.D.3d 1020, 1020–1021, 6 N.Y.S.3d 142 ). Here, the photographs were not offered for the sole purpose of arousing the emotions of the jurors (see People v. Stevens, 76 N.Y.2d 833, 835–836, 560 N.Y.S.2d 119, 559 N.E.2d 1278 ; People v. Valenko, 126 A.D.3d at 1021, 6 N.Y.S.3d 142 ; People v. Roque, 11 A.D.3d 488, 782 N.Y.S.2d 790 ; People v. Collic, 285 A.D.2d 514, 728 N.Y.S.2d 487 ). Rather, the photographs were admitted to illustrate and corroborate witness testimony (see People v. Roque, 11 A.D.3d at 489, 782 N.Y.S.2d 790 ; People v. Dellemand, 205 A.D.2d 551, 552, 613 N.Y.S.2d 195 ). Moreover, the photographs were not so inflammatory as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Valenko, 126 A.D.3d at 1021, 6 N.Y.S.3d 142 ; People v. Dorcinvil, 122 A.D.3d 874, 876, 996 N.Y.S.2d 661 ; People v. Thompson, 108 A.D.3d at 733, 969 N.Y.S.2d 168 ).
The imposition of consecutive terms of imprisonment for each of the counts of intentional murder and each of the counts of attempted murder was not illegal (see Penal Law § 70.25[2] ). Each of the intentional murders and each of the attempted murders committed by the defendant and his accomplices “was a separate and distinct act committed against a separate victim” (People v. Jingzhi Li, 104 A.D.3d 704, 705, 960 N.Y.S.2d 215 ; see People v. McKnight, 16 N.Y.3d 43, 48–49, 917 N.Y.S.2d 594, 942 N.E.2d 1019 ; People v. Vasser, 97 A.D.3d 767, 768, 948 N.Y.S.2d 419 ; People v. Holmes, 92 A.D.3d 957, 957, 938 N.Y.S.2d 902 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Sanchez, 124 A.D.3d 685, 689, 1 N.Y.S.3d 266 ; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).