People v. Gaylord

• Decision Date: 13 May 2021
• Docket Number: 110534
• Citation: 194 A.D.3d 1189,148 N.Y.S.3d 526
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ryan J. GAYLORD, Appellant.

194 A.D.3d 1189

148 N.Y.S.3d 526

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Ryan J. GAYLORD, Appellant.

110534

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

Calendar Date: March 16, 2021

Decided and Entered: May 13, 2021

Mitchell S. Kessler, Cohoes, for appellant.

Michael A. Korchak, District Attorney, Binghamton (Rita M. Basile of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Aarons, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pritzker, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Dooley, J.), rendered August 21, 2018, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of predatory sexual assault against a child.

In November 2017, defendant was charged by indictment with two counts of predatory sexual assault against a child stemming from incidents that took place between January 2017 and July 2017 where defendant engaged in multiple acts of sexual conduct with the minor victim, including sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct and/or anal sexual conduct. After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of the first count of predatory sexual assault against a child and was acquitted of the second count and was sentenced to a prison term of 18 years to life. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that County Court's Rape Shield Law ruling deprived him of evidence "essential to his defense" since the evidence "might" have established the victim's motive to fabricate and explained her age-inappropriate knowledge. The Rape Shield Law specifically "prohibits the introduction of ‘evidence of a victim's sexual conduct’ in a prosecution for a sex offense under Penal Law article 130, unless one of five statutory exceptions applies" ( People v. Simonetta, 94 A.D.3d 1242, 1245, 942 N.Y.S.2d 270 [2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 1029, 953 N.Y.S.2d 562, 978 N.E.2d 114 [2012], quoting CPL 60.42 ). As relevant here, the fifth exception vests discretion in the trial court to allow "evidence of prior sexual conduct to be admitted when such evidence ‘is determined by the court after an offer of proof by the accused outside the hearing of the jury, or such hearing as the court may require, and a statement by the court of its findings of fact essential to its determination, to be relevant and admissible in the interests of justice’ " ( People v. Williams, 81 N.Y.2d 303, 311, 598 N.Y.S.2d 167, 614 N.E.2d 730 [1992], quoting CPL 60.42[5] ).

After a Huntley hearing, County Court determined that a recorded interview of defendant by a detective was admissible up until the point in the interview where defendant requested an attorney. Subsequently, the People filed an application seeking to have certain portions of the video redacted because defendant mentions to the detective that the victim was allegedly involved in prior incidents where she had sex with her cousin and was inappropriately touched by another man. The People's position was that these portions of the video were not admissible under the Rape Shield Law. County Court granted the People's application, holding that defendant failed to demonstrate that these portions of the interview should be admitted under an exception to the Rape Shield Law, and that any connection between the allegations concerning the prior incidents and the victim's motive to fabricate or her knowledge of sexual activity and the male anatomy is "speculative and so tenuous as to be irrelevant." County Court also precluded cross-examination of the victim regarding her alleged disclosures to her therapist because defendant presented no evidence to establish a connection between the victim's alleged prior sexual incidents and her apparent motive to fabricate the current allegations.

Based on the foregoing, County Court did not deprive defendant from presenting a defense nor did it deprive defendant of evidence essential to his defense. The evidence defendant sought to introduce regarding the victim's prior sexual conduct is exactly the type of evidence prohibited by the Rape Shield Law (see generally People v. Williams, 81 N.Y.2d at 312, 598 N.Y.S.2d 167, 614 N.E.2d 730 ). Although defendant argues that such evidence might have discredited the victim – which he argues would fall in the interests of justice exception – County Court did not abuse its discretion in limiting exploration of the victim's alleged prior sexual experiences, as such information is not supported by any evidence other than through defendant's testimony, and such irrelevant testimony would likely have confused the jury (see CPL 60.42 ; People v. Youngs, 175 A.D.3d 1604, 1611, 110 N.Y.S.3d 73 [2019] ; People v. Serrano–Gonzalez, 146 A.D.3d 1013, 1016, 45 N.Y.S.3d 245 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 952, 54 N.Y.S.3d 383, 76 N.E.3d 1086 [2017] ). Defendant's related contention regarding the inadequacy of County Court's limiting instruction given after the prosecutor referenced the victim's prior "[l]ife experiences" during the summation is unpreserved inasmuch as defendant requested the limiting instruction and agreed to the language crafted by the court (see People v. Delbrey, 179 A.D.3d 1292, 1296, 117 N.Y.S.3d 356 [2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 969, 125 N.Y.S.3d 33, 148 N.E.3d 497 [2020] ; People v. Irby, 140 A.D.3d 1319, 1323, 33 N.Y.S.3d 530 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 931, 40 N.Y.S.3d 359, 63 N.E.3d 79 [2016] ).

Defendant also asserts that County Court abused its discretion and violated defendant's right to present a defense in precluding trial testimony from the detective who interviewed defendant in relation to the videotaped interview with defendant. "Trial courts are accorded wide discretion in making evidentiary rulings and, absent an abuse of discretion, those rulings should not be disturbed on appeal" ( People v. Carroll, 95 N.Y.2d 375, 385, 718 N.Y.S.2d 10, 740 N.E.2d 1084 [2000] [citation omitted]). However, "[a] court's discretion in evidentiary rulings is circumscribed by the rules of evidence and the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense" ( id. at 385, 718 N.Y.S.2d 10, 740 N.E.2d 1084 ; accord People v. Hall, 160 A.D.3d 210, 214, 74 N.Y.S.3d 143 [2018] ). Before jury selection, the parties engaged in a lengthy discussion with the court regarding the admissibility of evidence related to the detective's videotaped interview with defendant. The People indicated that they were not using it in their direct case and requested that defendant be precluded from pursuing this line of questioning.¹ After a lengthy discussion and arguments, prior to giving preliminary instructions to the jury (and the parties’ opening statements), the court ruled that there were not to be any references at trial to the videotaped interview of defendant despite defendant's argument that his entire case rests on the lack of investigation by the police. The court based this ruling on the fact that the statements made to the detective during the interview are hearsay and there is no relevant purpose to introduce them. Significantly, the court informed defendant that, at any time, he could request an offer of proof outside the presence of the jury if there was a specific reason that the video of the interview should be brought up to the jury.

County Court did not deprive defendant of a fair trial or the right to present a defense when it precluded questioning of the detective and references to the videotaped interview at trial. First, we disagree with defendant that the detective opened the door to this precluded line of questioning when he made one general reference to having conducted interviews of several people, including defendant (compare People v. Carroll, 95 N.Y.2d at 385–386, 718 N.Y.S.2d 10, 740 N.E.2d 1084 ; People v. Diaz, 20 N.Y.3d 569, 576, 965 N.Y.S.2d 738, 988 N.E.2d 473 [2013] ). The People did not pursue anything else related to the interview of defendant nor was there anything elicited from the detective in this regard about the substance of his interview with defendant. The court, on its own, made sure to prevent any further mention of the interview during cross-examination. Second, contrary to defendant's assertion, County Court was not assuming an advocacy role typically reserved for counsel when, during defendant's cross-examination of the detective, the court intervened and a sidebar was held so that the court could explain once again that the prior ruling precluded references to the videotaped interview. The court also specifically explained to the detective that there were not to be any references to the interview. We do not find that, by taking this action, the court abused its discretion and assumed the "advocacy role traditionally reserved for counsel" ( People v. Kachadourian, 184 A.D.3d 1021, 1028, 126 N.Y.S.3d 786 [2020] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1113, 133 N.Y.S.3d 533, 158 N.E.3d 550 [2020] ). Rather, the court sought to "clarify or enlighten an issue" to ensure that its prior ruling was not violated ( People v. Byrd, 152 A.D.3d 984, 988, 59 N.Y.S.3d 539 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 979, 113 N.Y.S.3d 649, 137 N.E.3d 19 [2019] ; see generally People v. Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63, 67–68, 745 N.Y.S.2d 782, 772 N.E.2d 1140 [2002] ).

Finally, we do not find that County Court abused its discretion in precluding defendant from questioning the detective about the recorded interview (see People v. DeFreitas, 116 A.D.3d 1078, 1082, 984 N.Y.S.2d 423 [2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 960, 996 N.Y.S.2d 219, 20 N.E.3d 999 [2014] ; compare People v. Carroll, 95 N.Y.2d at 385, 718 N.Y.S.2d 10, 740 N.E.2d 1084 ). Although defendant claims that he was precluded from his right to present a defense, our review of the detective's testimony establishes that defendant brought out many weaknesses in the investigation, which defense counsel aptly argued about during his summation. Moreover, despite being informed by the court that defendant could request an offer of proof outside of the hearing of the jury if he...