Case ID: ad3d_135/html/0876-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ras Joseph, Appellant.
    [22 NYS3d 598]
   Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered January 25, 2013, convicting him of assault in the second degree and unlawful possession of marihuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court excused potential jurors based upon hardship without conducting a sufficient inquiry is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Valenko, 126 AD3d 1020 [2015]; People v Boyd, 125 AD3d 992 [2015]; People v Racks, 125 AD3d 692 [2015]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit (see People v Bruce, 130 AD3d 938, 938 [2015]; People v Johnson, 116 AD3d 883, 883 [2014]; People v Umana, 76 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2010]; People v Toussaint, 40 AD3d 1017, 1017-1018 [2007]).

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to assault in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; People v Vincent, 80 AD3d 633, 634 [2011]).

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 NY3d at 348-349; People v Vincent, 80 AD3d at 634), 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 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to that crime was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]; People v Pelosi, 128 AD3d 733 [2015]). Chambers, J.P., Hall, Austin and Barros, JJ., concur.