People v. Ward
Opinion
| People v Ward |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 06019 |
| Decided on October 26, 2022 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on October 26, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
ROBERT J. MILLER
WILLIAM G. FORD
HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.
2020-00977
(Ind. No. 4483/16)
v
Rondell Ward, appellant.
Twyla Carter, New York, NY (David Crow and Davis Polk & Wardwell, LLP [Elizabeth A. Tippett, Jonah J. Stotsky, and Matthew T. Bolin], of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Keith Dolan, and Rebecca Height of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Laura R. Johnson, J.), rendered January 13, 2020, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that there was legally insufficient evidence to support the convictions of attempted murder in the second degree and murder in the second degree is without merit. 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 of those crimes 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), 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; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to those crimes was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
CONNOLLY, J.P., MILLER, FORD and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
175 N.Y.S.3d 733 (People v. Ward) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.