Opinion
2012-08-8
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Daquan NORRIS, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Paul Skip Laisure and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, LLP [Stephen P. Younger and Matthew B. Larsen], of counsel), for appellant. Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Anne Grady of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Paul Skip Laisure and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, LLP [Stephen P. Younger and Matthew B. Larsen], of counsel), for appellant. Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Anne Grady of counsel), for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Collini, J.), rendered May 7, 2008, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. By decision and order dated November 3, 2010, this Court remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, to hear and report on the defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges against black venirepersons and held the appeal in abeyance in the interim ( see People v. Norris, 78 A.D.3d 736, 909 N.Y.S.2d 655). The Supreme Court, Richmond County, has now filed its report.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor offered race-neutral explanations for exercising peremptory challenges to venirepersons ( see Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767–768, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834). The burden then shifted to the defendant to demonstrate that the proffered explanations were a pretext for discrimination, and he failed to carry that burden ( see People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 104, 629 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 653 N.E.2d 1173;People v. Celestine, 243 A.D.2d 485, 486, 665 N.Y.S.2d 278). The Supreme Court's determination that the challenges were not pretextual turned largely on its assessment of the prosecutor's credibility and is entitled to great deference on appeal ( see People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 356, 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 552 N.E.2d 621,affd.500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395;People v. Samms, 83 A.D.3d 1099, 921 N.Y.S.2d 317). Since the Supreme Court's determination is supported by the record, it will not be disturbed ( see People v. Gray, 79 A.D.3d 1067, 912 N.Y.S.2d 893;People v. Miles, 55 A.D.3d 307, 308, 864 N.Y.S.2d 28;People v. Boston, 52 A.D.3d 728, 729, 858 N.Y.S.2d 910;People v. Hall, 292 A.D.2d 166, 738 N.Y.S.2d 206).
The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of murder in the second degree because the People failed to prove the element of intent to kill. 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 beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the intent to kill the decedent ( seePenal Law § 125.25[1]; People v. Ortiz, 46 A.D.3d 580, 846 N.Y.S.2d 370;People v. Pabellon, 198 A.D.2d 87, 88, 603 N.Y.S.2d 840;People v. Angel, 185 A.D.2d 356, 358, 586 N.Y.S.2d 622;People v. Reyes, 108 A.D.2d 934, 485 N.Y.S.2d 827).
The defendant also contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because the People failed to prove the element of intent to kill and because the testimony of a prosecution witness was not credible. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 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 factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053,cert. denied542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828). 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 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.