People v. Brown

• Decision Date: 19 April 1996
• Citation: 642 N.Y.S.2d 145,226 A.D.2d 1108
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Walter BROWN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 145

642 N.Y.S.2d 145

226 A.D.2d 1108

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Walter BROWN, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

April 19, 1996.

John La Duca, Rochester, for Appellant.

Howard R. Relin, by Elizabeth Clifford, Rochester, for Respondent.

Before PINE, J.P., and WESLEY, BALIO, DAVIS and BOEHM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of rape in the first degree and assault in the third degree. Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not err in denying his request to charge the jury on the defense of intoxication (see, Penal Law § 15.25; People v. Gaines, 83 N.Y.2d 925, 927, 615 N.Y.S.2d 309, 638 N.E.2d 954). Although defendant testified that he had consumed alcoholic beverages and drugs on the night in question, "the record is devoid of evidence that [at the time he committed the crimes] the defendant exhibited signs of intoxication or was affected by the alcohol [and drugs] he had consumed" (People v. Powell, 181 A.D.2d 923, 924, 582 N.Y.S.2d 30, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 836, 587 N.Y.S.2d 921, 600 N.E.2d 648; see also, People v. Sessions, 176 A.D.2d 626, 575 N.Y.S.2d 313, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 864, 580 N.Y.S.2d 736, 588 N.E.2d 771). Indeed, defendant testified that he was not intoxicated, and a friend of defendant who shared the drugs testified that he did not think that defendant was intoxicated. Moreover, the complainant, defendant's 17-year-old niece, testified that defendant drove her around the City of Rochester for approximately 30 minutes before raping her, during which time he spoke clearly and obeyed all traffic regulations. The complainant further testified that she did not believe that defendant was intoxicated, and that he did not begin acting strangely until after he had raped her.

The court properly denied the motion of defendant to suppress physical evidence seized from his bedroom shortly after his arrest. Defendant's wife allowed the police officer to enter her home and voluntarily consented to the search (see, People v. Cosme, 48 N.Y.2d 286, 290, 422 N.Y.S.2d 652, 397 N.E.2d 1319; People v. Johnson, 202 A.D.2d 966, 609 N.Y.S.2d 500, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 827, 617 N.Y.S.2d 147, 641 N.E.2d 168). Defendant's wife identified the clothing worn by defendant on the night in question, and the officer lawfully seized the clothing as evidence of a crime (see, People v. Jackson, 41 N.Y.2d 146, 149-150, 391 N.Y.S.2d 82, 359 N.E.2d 677; People v. Auxilly, 173 A.D.2d 627, 628, 570 N.Y.S.2d 212, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1125, 578 N.Y.S.2d 883, 586 N.E.2d 66).

The court's Sandoval ruling was proper (see, People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236, 238-239, 451 N.Y.S.2d 690, 436 N.E.2d 1292; People v. Guzman, 202 A.D.2d 272, 608 N.Y.S.2d 654; People v. Maiolo, 122 A.D.2d 586, 504 N.Y.S.2d 931, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 814, ...