Summary
This New York Appellate Division decision affirms the defendant's conviction for rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child following a jury verdict. The court rejected the defendant's claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, finding sufficient credible testimony supported the jury's findings. Additionally, the court addressed unpreserved claims regarding prosecutorial comments and time-barred charges, declining to review them under its interest of justice jurisdiction, and found no ineffective assistance of counsel.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence
- Whether the prosecutor's comments during opening statement and summation constituted reversible error
- Whether the endangerment of the child counts were time‑barred and the issue was preserved
- Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the time‑barred charges
Holdings
- The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence and is affirmed.
- The comments were preserved and constitute fair comment; no reversible error.
- The issue was unpreserved; the court declines to reach it.
- Counsel was not ineffective; no violation of the right to counsel.
Key quotations
“"Weight of the evidence review requires a court first to determine whether an acquittal would not have been unreasonable"” (at 1)
“"Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the court then decides whether the jury was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"” (at 1)
Factual background
Christopher Profit was convicted of first‑degree rape, first‑degree sexual abuse, and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child. He appealed arguing that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that prosecutorial comments during opening and summation were improper, that the child‑endangerment counts were time‑barred, and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object. The appellate court examined the record for preservation of issues and the weight‑of‑evidence standard.
Procedural history
The trial court (Supreme Court, Kings County) rendered a verdict and sentence on December 18, 2018. The appellant appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department.