People v Gilliard, 2017 NY Slip Op 00483 [146 AD3d 980]
January 25, 2017
Appellate Division, Second Department
[*1]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Donovan Gilliard, Appellant.
Del Atwell, East Hampton, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), rendered November 28, 2011, convicting him of murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request to admit into evidence the codefendant’s out-of-court statement to a police officer as a declaration against penal interest. The portion of the statement that the defendant sought to admit did not directly inculpate the codefendant ( see People v Geoghegan , 51 NY2d 45, 49 [1980]; People v Coleman , 125 AD3d 879 , 880 [2015]). Rather, the statement was made under circumstances which suggest that it was intended to minimize the codefendant’s criminal involvement ( see People v Toussaint , 74 AD3d 846 , 846 [2010]; People v Singh , 47 AD3d 733 , 734 [2008]). Since the statement was properly excluded as inadmissible hearsay, the defendant’s contention that his constitutional right to present a defense was violated is without merit ( see People v Xing Chen , 117 AD3d 762 , 763 [2014]).
The defendant’s contentions that the evidence was legally insufficient to disprove his justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt and to support his convictions are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins , 11 NY3d 484 , 491-492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant’s justification defense and to establish the defendant’s guilt 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 [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 rejection of the justification defense and the verdict of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). [*2] The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, without merit. Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur..