People v. Danford

• Decision Date: 20 October 2011
• Citation: 931 N.Y.S.2d 137,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07310,88 A.D.3d 1064
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Willie DANFORD, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

88 A.D.3d 1064

931 N.Y.S.2d 137

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07310

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Willie DANFORD, Appellant.

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

Oct. 20, 2011.

Paul J. Connolly, Delmar, for appellant.Mark D. Suben, District Attorney, Cortland (Kevin A. Jones of counsel), for respondent.Before: PETERS, J.P., SPAIN, LAHTINEN, STEIN and EGAN JR., JJ.STEIN, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County(Campbell, J.), rendered August 12, 2010, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree.

Defendant was arrested after selling approximately two ounces of cocaine to a confidential police informant (hereinafter CI) in the City of Cortland, Cortland County.He was indicted and found guilty after a jury trial of one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree.County Court sentenced him, as a second violent felony offender, to a prison term of 14 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision and directed him to pay restitution of $2,400 to the Cortland County Drug Task Force for the buy money used in the undercover operation.Defendant now appeals and we modify.

Preliminarily, we note that defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial is not preserved because he failed to move for a trial order of dismissal with sufficient particularity ( seePeople v. Hawkins,11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946[2008];People v. Gray,86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919[1995];People v. Malcolm,74 A.D.3d 1483, 1484 n., 902 N.Y.S.2d 264[2010], lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 954, 917 N.Y.S.2d 113, 942 N.E.2d 324[2010] ).Nevertheless, as defendant also argues that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5] ), we will necessarily evaluate whether the elements of the crimes charged were sufficiently proven at trial ( see generallyPeople v. Danielson,9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1[2007];People v. Garcia,79 A.D.3d 1248, 1250, 911 N.Y.S.2d 723[2010], lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 797, 919 N.Y.S.2d 514, 944 N.E.2d 1154[2011];People v. Jones,79 A.D.3d 1244, 1246, 912 N.Y.S.2d 746[2010], lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 832, 921 N.Y.S.2d 196, 946 N.E.2d 184[2011] ).

Upon our review, we find that defendant's conviction was not against the weight of the evidence.The CI and Troy Boice, one of the lead investigators on this case, both testified that the operation began on November 5, 2009 when Boice had the CI call defendant and ask for “a couple ... snow tires,” which is allegedly code for two ounces of cocaine.Further testimony established that, before proceeding to the arranged buy location, Boice, Sean Kilpatrick and Todd Caufield—two other members of the drug task force—searched the CI and his vehicle and found no drugs.Thereafter, Boice gave the CI $2,400 of marked bills to purchase the drugs.A recording device was placed on the CI and the CI, followed immediately thereafter by members of the drug task force, drove in separate vehicles to the prearranged buy location.Boice and Kilpatrick, who were in the unmarked police vehicle directly behind the CI, testified that they remained in visual contact with the CI's truck during the entirety of the drive to the buy location.

After the CI and the drug task force members arrived at the arranged buy location and got into position, defendant arrived and parked his vehicle.Defendant then got out of his vehicle and went into a store at the nearby shopping center, after which he returned and got into the CI's vehicle.The ensuing conversation between the CI and defendant—which referred to the transfer of the money from the CI to defendant—was monitored by the drug task force members through the recording device worn by the CI.Although no explicit reference to the drugs was made during the conversation, the CI testified that defendant gave him two plastic bags containing a white powder, in return for which he gave defendant the marked $2,400.Defendant was arrested upon exiting the vehicle.The CI drove away, but was stopped by Joseph Slater, another officer working with the drug task force.

At the time of his arrest, defendant was searched and found to have the entire marked $2,400 in his possession.In addition, Boice and Slater testified that two plastic bags containing a white, powdery substance were found on the front seat of the CI's truck and which were later weighed and field-tested by Caufield, who determined the substance to be approximately 50 grams of cocaine.The field test results were subsequently confirmed by Julie Romano, the forensic scientist who tested the substance at the state crime lab.

Defendant also testified and proffered his version of the events that took place on November 5, 2009.According to defendant, he believed that the CI had called him to arrange for him to deliver actual snow tires, as he had provided the CI with automobile parts in the past.Defendant further testified that, although he did not have enough time to pick up any snow tires, he went to meet with the CI anyway so that the CI could give him $2,400 as part of a prearranged loan.Defendant denied that he passed or sold any drugs to the CI.While defendant's testimony contradicted that offered by the People, it “presented ‘a classic credibility issue’ for the jury to resolve”( People v. Mitchell,57 A.D.3d 1308, 1309, 871 N.Y.S.2d 445[2008], quotingPeople v. Allen,13 A.D.3d 892, 894, 787 N.Y.S.2d 417[2004], lv. denied4 N.Y.3d 883, 798 N.Y.S.2d 728, 831 N.E.2d 973[2005];accordPeople v. Moyer,75 A.D.3d 1004, 1006, 906 N.Y.S.2d 175[2010] ).The jury apparently chose to credit the People's version of events.Even if a different finding would not have been unreasonable, viewing the evidence in a neutral light and deferring to the jury's superior position to determine witness credibility, we do not find that the jury failed to accord the evidence its proper weight ( seePeople v. Romero,7 N.Y.3d 633, 643–644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902[2006];People v. Rolle,72 A.D.3d 1393, 1396, 900 N.Y.S.2d 187[2010], lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 745, 917 N.Y.S.2d 627, 942 N.E.2d 1052[2011];People v. Sidbury,24 A.D.3d 880, 880–881, 806 N.Y.S.2d 273[2005], lv. denied6 N.Y.3d 818, 812 N.Y.S.2d 457, 845 N.E.2d 1288[2006];People v. Beverly,5 A.D.3d 862, 865, 772 N.Y.S.2d 763[2004], lvs. denied2 N.Y.3d 796, 804, 781 N.Y.S.2d 295, 304, 814 N.E.2d 467, 476[2004] ).

We turn next to defendant's contention that County Court improperly admitted the plastic bags of cocaine recovered by the police and the testimony relating to the contents and weight of those bags because the People failed to establish a complete chain of custody over them.The party seeking admission of evidence must establish the authenticity of that evidence, which mandates showing that “the evidence is identical to that involved in the crime [and] has not been tampered with”( People v. Julian,41 N.Y.2d 340, 342–343, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310[1977];seePeople v. Beverly,5 A.D.3d at 864, 772 N.Y.S.2d 763;People v. Battistini,306 A.D.2d 636, 637, 761 N.Y.S.2d 363[2003], lv. denied1 N.Y.3d 568, 775 N.Y.S.2d 785, 807 N.E.2d 898[2003] ).One method of authenticating a fungible item, such as a plastic bag of white powder, is to establish the chain of custody of that item ( seePeople v. Julian,41 N.Y.2d at 343, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310;People v. Battistini,306 A.D.2d at 637, 761 N.Y.S.2d 363).

Here, Boice testified that, when he first approached the CI's vehicle after the controlled buy on November 5, 2009, he saw two plastic bags of white powder sitting on the front passenger seat.Although Boice did not immediately take those bags into his physical possession as he went to obtain an evidence bag from another vehicle, Slater testified that he observed the CI's vehicle the entire time and did not see anyone other than Boice enter that vehicle.Boice thereafter returned to the vehicle and secured the two plastic bags in a brown evidence bag and transported them back to the police station.Boice also testified that he placed the bags on Caufield's desk while he was interviewing defendant in the adjacent interview room at the police station, but that he was able to observe the bags from the interview room.The plastic bags were subsequently transferred into Caufield's possession and, after he weighed and tested the substance contained therein, he placed the evidence into the evidence locker.This process was recorded on exhibit No. 18, the chain of custody document turned over to defendant prior to trial.

The People also presented the testimony of Edward Lake, the evidence custodian of the Cortland County Sheriff's Office in November 2009, that he took the plastic bags from the evidence locker to the crime lab for testing.Romano testified that the bags were received into custody by the crime lab.After they were tested, they were returned to the evidence locker by Caufield.These events were recorded on exhibit No. 28—the chain of custody record maintained by the evidence custodian—which exhibit was turned over to defense counsel prior to his examination of Caufield, Romano and Lake.

Viewed in its entirety, the foregoing provides the necessary reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the drugs to authenticate that evidence ( seePeople v. Gilmore,72 A.D.3d 1191, 1192–1193, 898 N.Y.S.2d 717[2010];People v. Bellamy,34 A.D.3d 937, 938–939, 823 N.Y.S.2d 607[2006], lv. denied8 N.Y.3d 843, 830 N.Y.S.2d 702, 862 N.E.2d 794[2007] ).Thus, the admission of the cocaine into evidence was proper and any purported gaps in the chain of custody raised by defendant went to the persuasiveness of that evidence, not its admissibility ( seePeople v. Hawkins,11 N.Y.3d at 494, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d...