People v. Frye

• Citation: 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02955,942 N.Y.S.2d 111,94 A.D.3d 589
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kahree FRYE, Defendant–Appellant.
• Decision Date: 19 April 2012
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02955

94 A.D.3d 589

942 N.Y.S.2d 111

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Kahree FRYE, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

April 19, 2012.

Stanley Neustadter, Cardozo Criminal Appeals Clinic, New York (Jeremy Gutman of counsel), for appellant.

Kahree Frye, appellant pro se.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Philip Morrow of counsel), for respondent.TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, DeGRASSE, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered April 7, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree (five counts), assault in the first degree (five counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly admitted an incriminating letter, since there was adequate circumstantial proof that defendant was the source of the letter ( see People v. Hamilton, 3 A.D.3d 405, 771 N.Y.S.2d 104 [2004], mod. on other grounds 4 N.Y.3d 654, 797 N.Y.S.2d 408, 830 N.E.2d 306 [2005] ). The contents and context of the letter strongly indicated that it was written by defendant, and the letter was very similar in content to another letter in evidence that was undisputedly in defendant's handwriting. The issues raised by defendant went to the weight to be given by the jury to the letter, not its admissibility. In any event, any error was harmless ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975] ). Defendant's argument concerning the best evidence rule is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits.

We have considered and rejected defendant's pro se claims regarding alleged bolstering testimony. Defendant's remaining pro se claims are procedurally barred because they violate the terms of this Court's order authorizing a pro se supplemental brief ( see People v. Hasanati, 48 A.D.3d 208, 851 N.Y.S.2d 424 [2008] ).