People v. Alisuarez

• Decision Date: 16 September 2020
• Docket Number: Ind. No. 883/15,2017-13412
• Citation: 186 A.D.3d 1391,128 N.Y.S.3d 880 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jairam C. ALISUAREZ, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

186 A.D.3d 1391

128 N.Y.S.3d 880 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,

v.Jairam C. ALISUAREZ, Appellant.

2017-13412

Ind. No. 883/15

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

Argued—March 31, 2020

September 16, 2020

Randall D. Unger, Bayside, NY, for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, RUTH C. BALKIN, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Michael Aloise, J.), rendered November 27, 2017, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), assault in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and attempted robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request for a missing witness charge. The defendant failed to meet his initial burden to demonstrate that the witness, who could not be located despite diligent efforts and who was hostile to the People, was under the People's control (see People v. Lembhard, 154 A.D.3d 686, 61 N.Y.S.3d 658 ).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of a fair trial because the Supreme Court declined to give an interested witness charge for a witness who testified pursuant to a cooperation agreement. The court's charge as a whole, including an instruction that the jury may consider whether a witness hopes for or expects to receive a benefit for testifying and, if so, whether that benefit affects the truthfulness of the witness's testimony, "adequately conveyed to the jury the appropriate standard by which to evaluate the testimony of that witness" ( People v. Kettreis, 19 A.D.3d 706, 707, 798 N.Y.S.2d 92 ; see People v. Jones, 138 A.D.3d 1144, 1144–1145, 30 N.Y.S.3d 329 ).

Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, the People did not violate their obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 ). "To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature, the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution, and prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v. Breland, 178 A.D.3d 716, 717, 115 N.Y.S.3d 427 ). " Brady does not require that disclosure be made at any particular point in the proceedings, but only that it be made in time for the defense to use it effectively" ( People v. McClinton, 180 A.D.3d 712, 713, 119 N.Y.S.3d 132 ). Here, defense counsel conceded that a description of the perpetrator was turned over "a week" prior to the commencement of the trial, and the defendant did not seek to call the individual who provided the description. Since there is no indication that the People suppressed that evidence or that earlier disclosure might have had any effect on the outcome of the trial, the defendant failed to establish a Brady violation (see id. ; People v. Smith, 171 A.D.3d 1102, 1104, 98 N.Y.S.3d 313 ). Further, there is no indication that the People suppressed either a witness's statement regarding his description of a vehicle or a witness's cooperation agreement, and the defendant was afforded a meaningful opportunity to use such evidence at trial (see People v. Tripp, 162 A.D.3d 691, 692, 77 N.Y.S.3d 670 ).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial because the People elicited testimony on cross-examination of a defense witness indicating that the defendant was incarcerated pending trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Zelaya, 170 A.D.3d 1206, 96 N.Y.S.3d 683 ). In any event, under the circumstances presented, the prosecutor's cross-examination of a defense witness regarding the defendant's incarceration was not so egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Wilson, 141 A.D.3d 737, 738, 35 N.Y.S.3d 482...