People v. Chambers

Opinion

People v Chambers

2026 NY Slip Op 05112

August 26, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Wayne O. Chambers, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 26, 2026

2024-01697, (Ind. No. 71381/21)

Betsy Barros, J.P.

Paul Wooten

Deborah A. Dowling

Carl J. Landicino, JJ.

Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Felice B. Milani and Melissa Kanas of counsel), for appellant.

Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Pilar O'Rourke and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Richard Ambro, J.), rendered January 25, 2024, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence certain text messages between the defendant and the victim, who was his ex-girlfriend, and between the victim and her boyfriend. The text messages at issue were relevant to the issues of the defendant's motive and intent, and their probative value outweighed the risk of prejudice to the defendant from their admission (see People v Smith, 249 AD3d 762, 762; People v Celestine, 208 AD3d 509, 510). The defendant's contention that the text messages constituted inadmissible hearsay is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Tumolo, 203 AD3d 961, 963). In any event, the text messages either were admissible under the party admissions exception to the hearsay rule (see People v McPhillips, 133 AD3d 785, 786), or were not admitted to prove the truth of their content and were relevant for the nonhearsay purposes of explaining the relationship between the defendant and the victim and the defendant's motive (see People v Hunter, 244 AD3d 1239, 1240; People v Tumolo, 203 AD3d at 964). Moreover, the defendant's contention that the People failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the text messages by establishing their authenticity is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Fuentes, 185 AD3d 960, 962) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Rodriguez, 38 NY3d 151, 155).

The defendant's contention that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel under either the federal or state constitutional standards is without merit (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 714).

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt [*2]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 NY3d 342, 348-349), 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; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). 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, 643-645).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

BARROS, J.P., WOOTEN, DOWLING and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court