People v. Hoffler

Decision Date07 June 2007
Docket Number15327.
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL HOFFLER, Also Known as MURDER, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), rendered February 27, 2004, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Peters, J.

Defendant was charged with crimes stemming from three different transactions concerning the sale of cocaine to confidential informants. The May 1, 2003 charges arose out of a coordinated effort between the Albany City Police and Chris Drabik, a confidential informant, who only knew defendant by his appearance and his street name, "Murder." The police and Drabik arranged for a controlled buy with defendant. Drabik, outfitted with a "Kell kit" for audio contact and surveillance, effectuated the sale while the police visually witnessed the event.

A second controlled buy was arranged between Drabik and defendant on May 6, 2003. At that time, the police and Drabik were still unaware of defendant's proper name. Drabik telephoned "Murder" to set up another exchange. Again, the police participated in an audio and visual surveillance as Drabik waited for defendant to arrive. When Drabik saw defendant arriving in his automobile, he used the Kell kit to identify defendant as the driver. The police observed Drabik make an exchange with a male passenger and later pulled the vehicle over to identify the proper names of its occupants. Defendant provided a license which falsely identified him as Ernest Hoffler.

On May 14, 2003, a different confidential informant arranged to meet defendant for the purpose of purchasing $300 worth of cocaine. When defendant saw the police at the prearranged location, he ran, but was eventually apprehended and arrested.

After indictment and prior to trial, defendant challenged the admissibility of his street name, "Murder." He contended that the use of the term was highly prejudicial since Drabik had allegedly been murdered shortly before the trial commenced. County Court, balancing the prejudicial nature of the street name with the probative value of the testimony, granted the People permission to introduce defendant's street name. It did, however, indicate that it would issue limiting instructions concerning its use throughout the trial. Such limiting instructions specifically confined the use of defendant's street name to identification purposes. The jury was repeatedly admonished concerning its limited relevance. Convicted of all charges and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 17 to 34 years, he now appeals.

Defendant contends that three evidentiary rulings by County Court impeded his right to a fair trial. Addressing first the admission of defendant's street name throughout the trial, it has been held that where it is relevant to identify a perpetrator, it will be admissible at the court's discretion (see People v Crowder, 2 AD3d 454, 455 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 739 [2004]; People v Candelario, 198 AD2d 512, 513 [1993], lvs denied 83 NY2d 803, 965 [1994]). Here, neither Drabik, who arranged the first two controlled buys with defendant, nor the police knew defendant's proper name until the third attempted buy. Moreover, throughout the audio and video surveillance, defendant was only referred to by his street name, making his alias highly probative in identifying him as the perpetrator (see People v Crowder, supra at 455; People v Candelario, supra at 513). While the alleged homicide of Drabik shortly before defendant's trial was the subject of significant media coverage, County Court properly concluded that with the limiting instructions given and the possibility of jury confusion that could be created by a redacted version of the audio tapes, the People should be permitted to use defendant's street name during the trial. Under these circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion in denying a mistrial on this basis (see People v Ortiz, 54 NY2d 288, 292 [1981]; People v Durant, 6 AD3d 938, 941 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 639 [2004]).

Defendant's second assertion that a police officer improperly identified him as the voice he heard when Drabik allegedly called defendant on May 1, 2003 and May 6, 2003 is without merit. A witness may...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Hoffler v. Bezio
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • August 8, 2013
    ...pending drug charges, and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 17 to 34 years. See People v. Hoffler, 41 A.D.3d 891, 892, 837 N.Y.S.2d 750, 752 (3d Dep't 2007).B. Hoffler's Initial Conviction for Drabik's Murder On March 19, 2004, a grand jury indicted Hoffler on hom......
  • People v. Hoffler
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 24, 2010
    ...convicted as charged and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 17 to 34 years.1 This Court affirmed the judgment on direct appeal ( 41 A.D.3d 891, 837 N.Y.S.2d 750 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 962, 848 N.Y.S.2d 30, 878 N.E.2d 614 [2007] ). Defendant, proceeding pro se, then moved to vacat......
  • Hoffler v. Bezio
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • August 8, 2013
    ...pending drug charges, and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 17 to 34 years. See People v. Hoffler, 41 A.D.3d 891, 892, 837 N.Y.S.2d 750, 752 (3d Dep't 2007). B. Hoffler's Initial Conviction for Drabik's Murder On March 19, 2004, a grand jury indicted Hoffler on ho......
  • People v. Cummings
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 4, 2018
    ...instructed the jury that it could not consider his street name as any evidence of guilt of the crime charged (see People v. Hoffler , 41 A.D.3d 891, 892–893, 837 N.Y.S.2d 750 [2007], lvs denied 9 N.Y.3d 962, 963, 848 N.Y.S.2d 30, 878 N.E.2d 614 [2007] ; see also People v. Franqueira , 143 A......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT