People v. Fields
| Decision Date | 21 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | 2015–07353,Ind. No. 2916/13 |
| Citation | 88 N.Y.S.3d 572,166 A.D.3d 897 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Andrew FIELDS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Merri Turk Lasky, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Mariana Zelig of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was tried with a codefendant for various crimes arising out of a gunpoint robbery of an individual in a Queens apartment building and possession of a firearm thereafter while occupying a vehicle that had been reported stolen. Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree, two counts of robbery in the second degree, strangulation in the second degree, two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.
We agree with the Supreme Court's denial of the defendant's motion to sever the robbery and weapons possession counts. These counts in the indictment were properly joined, since the nature of the evidence for each of the offenses was material and admissible as evidence upon the trial of the other counts in the indictment (see CPL 200.20[2][b] ; People v. Bongarzone, 69 N.Y.2d 892, 895, 515 N.Y.S.2d 227, 507 N.E.2d 1083 ). As the offenses were properly joined in one indictment from the outset pursuant to CPL 200.20(2)(b), the court lacked the statutory authority to sever them (see CPL 200.20[3] ; People v. Bongarzone, 69 N.Y.2d at 895, 515 N.Y.S.2d 227, 507 N.E.2d 1083 ; People v. Senat, 165 A.D.3d 705, 85 N.Y.S.3d 99 ; People v. Bonilla, 127 A.D.3d 985, 986, 6 N.Y.S.3d 147 ).
We also agree with the Supreme Court's denial of the defendant's motion for a missing witness charge as to the robbery victim's friend, who allegedly saw the victim shortly after the robbery. As conceded by the defendant, the request for the missing witness charge was untimely (see People v. Joseph, 161 A.D.3d 1105, 1105, 73 N.Y.S.3d 911 ; People v. Mancusi, 161 A.D.3d 775, 776, 76 N.Y.S.3d 574 ; People v. Sealy, 35 A.D.3d 510, 510, 826 N.Y.S.2d 358 ). Moreover, the defendant failed to show that the witness was knowledgeable about a material issue in the case and would be expected to provide noncumulative testimony favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Edwards, 14 N.Y.3d 733, 735, 899 N.Y.S.2d 65, 925 N.E.2d 867 ; People v. Locenitt, 157 A.D.3d 905, 907, 66 N.Y.S.3d 908 ).
The defendant's contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the verdict of guilt was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence, are without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes , 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d at 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo , 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of...
To continue reading
Request your trial