People v. Bush

• Decision Date: 22 December 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 2019-05067,Ind. No. 949/18,12684
• Citation: 138 N.Y.S.3d 31,189 A.D.3d 643
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Steven BUSH, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

189 A.D.3d 643

138 N.Y.S.3d 31

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Steven BUSH, Defendant–Appellant.

12684

Ind. No. 949/18

Case No. 2019-05067

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

ENTERED: December 22, 2020

Robert Caliendo, Brooklyn, for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Diana Wang of counsel), for respondent.

Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Singh, Kennedy, Shulman, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen N. Biben at motion to controvert warrant; James M. Burke, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered September 5, 2019, convicting defendant of attempted assault in the first degree and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's request for a missing witness instruction regarding the shooting victim. upon its finding that he was not under the People's control for missing witness purposes (see People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 428–430, 509 N.Y.S.2d 796, 502 N.E.2d 583 [1986] ). Notwithstanding his status as a crime victim, the uncalled witness was uncooperative and hostile toward the People, and thus could not be expected to testify favorably on their behalf (see e. g. People v. Lopez, 168 A.D.3d 418, 90 N.Y.S.3d 170 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1033, 102 N.Y.S.3d 508, 126 N.E.3d 158 [2019] ; People v. Mobley, 77 A.D.3d 488, 489, 908 N.Y.S.2d 686 [1st Dept. 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 954, 917 N.Y.S.2d 114, 942 N.E.2d 325 [2010] ; People v. Hernandez, 256 A.D.2d 18, 19, 682 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept. 1998], lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 874, 689 N.Y.S.2d 436, 711 N.E.2d 650 [1999] ). In any event, defense counsel was able to argue in summation that the People chose not to call the victim because his testimony would not have supported their position.

A warrant for the search of defendant's phone was supported by probable cause and was not overbroad (see United States v. Ganias, 824 F.3d 199, 217 [2d Cir.2016 en banc], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 569, 196 L.Ed.2d 445 [2016] ; United States v. Galpin, 720 F.3d 436, 445–447 [2d Cir.2013] ). The supporting affidavit specified the type of evidence likely to be contained in the phone, and the warrant did not lack particularity, in light of the recognized nature of cellphone data.

A photograph of defendant holding a small handgun, taken approximately six weeks before the charged shooting, and recovered from defendant's phone pursuant to the warrant, was properly admitted. It could be inferred from video footage introduced at trial that a small handgun was used in the shooting. As in People v. Alexander (169 A.D.3d 571, 94 N.Y.S.3d 63 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 927, 109 N.Y.S.3d 699, 133 N.E.3d 399 [2019] ), the photograph was "relevant to show that defendant had access to such a weapon, thus tending to establish his identity as the perpetrator, and there was no requirement of proof that the [firearm] in the photograph was the actual weapon used in the crime" ( id. at 571, 94 N.Y.S.3d 63 ; see also People v. Del Vermo, 192 N.Y. 470, 478–482, 85 N.E. 690 [1908] ; People v. Winkfield, 98 A.D.3d 923, 951 N.Y.S.2d 151 [1st Dept. 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 1066, 962 N.Y.S.2d 617, 985 N.E.2d 927 [2013] ).

We find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849...