Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Deshaun Morris, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2018-01-17
Citations: 157 A.D.3d 827
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Deshaun Morris, Appellant.
Judges: Chambers, J.P., Cohen, Barros and Christopher, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 157
Pages: 827–828

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Deshaun Morris, Appellant.
[66 NYS3d 644]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Albert Tomei, J.), rendered May 12, 2010, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of murder in the second degree (see Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Hale, 147 AD3d 975 [2017]; People v Leddy, 47 AD3d 842 [2008]). Additionally, 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 342 [2007]), 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 490, 495 [1987]). 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 NY3d 633, 643-644 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that his right to due process was violated by alleged prosecutorial misconduct on summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), as the defendant failed to object, request curative instructions, or timely move for a mistrial (see People v Dunning, 148 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2017]), and we decline to review the contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; [6]; People v Grant, 152 AD3d 792, 793 [2017]; People v Jones, 139 AD3d 878, 880 [2016]; People v Ellis, 133 AD3d 777, 778 [2015]; People v Belle, 113 AD3d 630, 631 [2014]).
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for a mistrial (see People v Pleasant, 146 AD3d 985, 986 [2017]).
Chambers, J.P., Cohen, Barros and Christopher, JJ., concur.