Crimes - Rape - Sufficiency of Evidence - Lack of Consent

Crimes - Jurors - Request for Read Back of Testimony

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Craig Stephen Brown, J.), rendered September 6, 2022, convicting him of rape in the third 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, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of rape in the third degree (Penal Law former § 130.25 [3]) beyond a reasonable doubt. From the evidence presented, a jury could logically conclude that the victim, by her words and actions, clearly expressed her unwillingness to engage in sexual intercourse, in such a way that a neutral observer would have understood that she was not consenting to sexual intercourse with the defendant (see Penal Law § 130.05 [2] [d]; People v Smith, 174 AD3d 825, 826 [2019]; People v Powell, 128 AD3d 1174, 1176 [2015]; People v Evans, 79 AD3d 454 [2010]). 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 [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 as to rape in the third degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court gave a meaningful response to the jury's written request during deliberations for a read back of certain testimony from the victim. Although the court directed a read back of testimony that was somewhat broader than the jury's request as expressly stated, the additional information was consistent with the jury's request and provided a complete answer to the jury's inquiry (see People v Grant, 127 AD3d 990, 991 [2015]; People v Garcia, 56 AD3d 271, 272 [2008]; People v Perez, 15 AD3d 284, 284-285 [2005]). Furthermore, the defendant was not prejudiced by the additional portions of the read back (see People v Grant, 127 AD3d at 991; People v Perez, 15 AD3d at 284-285).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Brisman, 43 NY3d 322 [2025]; [*2]People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Iannacci, J.P., Brathwaite Nelson, Dowling and Golia, JJ., concur.