People v Marten, 2024 NY Slip Op 02784 [227 AD3d 554]
May 21, 2024
Appellate Division, First Department
[*1]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Lashawn Marten, Appellant.
Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Katherine M.A. Pecore of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Alexander Michaels of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa C. Jackson, J.), rendered September 12, 2017, as amended November 1, 2017, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime, assault in the second degree as a hate crime, and attempted assault in the second degree as a hate crime, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 25 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the aggregate sentence to 20 years, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342 , 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. Defendant’s intent to cause serious physical injury could be readily inferred from his declarations that he was going to “snuff out” or “knock out” the “next white person” who passed by him, and by the force with which he struck the victims in the face ( see People v Caban , 306 AD2d 141 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 618 [2003]). The fact that defendant punched each victim only once does not warrant a different conclusion. The record does not support defendant’s contention that he was suffering from a psychotic episode and was merely trying to keep the victims from getting too close to him.
Defendant did not preserve his claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the causation element of manslaughter ( see People v Hawkins , 11 NY3d 484 , 492 [2008]), and we decline to address it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. The death of the 62-year-old victim was a reasonably foreseeable result of defendant’s unexpected, unprovoked “haymaker” punch, which knocked the victim backward such that his head hit the pavement, causing the fatal brain injury ( see People v Davis , 28 NY3d 294 , 301-302 [2016]).
Defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s comments on summation are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the challenged remarks were generally responsive to defense counsel’s summation and based on the evidence. To the extent that a few isolated comments might be deemed inappropriate, there was no pattern of inflammatory remarks or anything so egregious as to have deprived defendant of a fair trial ( see People v D’Alessandro , 184 AD2d 114, 118-120 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).
We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Moulton, Mendez, Rosado, O’Neill Levy, JJ..