People v. Goldman

• Decision Date: 29 December 2020
• Docket Number: Ind. No. 1114/12,9039,Case No. 2016-02069
• Citation: 189 A.D.3d 698,139 N.Y.S.3d 48
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Reginald GOLDMAN, Defendant–Appellant.

189 A.D.3d 698

139 N.Y.S.3d 48

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Reginald GOLDMAN, Defendant–Appellant.

9039

Ind. No. 1114/12

Case No. 2016-02069

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

ENTERED: December 29, 2020

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Alexandra L. Mitter of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Robert C. McIver of counsel), for respondent.

Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Singh, Moulton, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven L. Barrett, J., at search warrant hearing; Martin Marcus, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered June 9, 2016, convicting defendant of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

This matter is before us upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals for determination of facts and issues raised but not determined in our previous decision reversing the judgment of conviction, which decision the Court of Appeals has reversed (see 171 A.D.3d 581, 99 N.Y.S.3d 257 [1st Dept. 2019], revd 35 N.Y.3d 582, 135 N.Y.S.3d 48, 159 N.E.3d 772 [2020] ). Apart from the issues addressed by the Court of Appeals in its decision, this Court's prior decision determined that "the verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence" ( 171 A.D.3d at 583, 99 N.Y.S.3d 257 ).

Accordingly, the issues raised by defendant on his appeal remaining to be determined at this juncture are whether the trial court properly permitted a police witness to testify as an expert, whether the People established probable cause for the DNA search warrant, whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the YouTube video's probative value outweighed its potential for prejudice, and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. Those issues are addressed below.

Defendant argues that the court committed reversible error in permitting a police detective to testify, as an expert on gang language, concerning the meaning of a slang expression allegedly uttered by defendant during the incident giving rise to the prosecution. Initially, to the extent defendant argues that the presentation of this testimony deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial, defendant failed to preserve any claim of constitutional error with respect to this testimony. Also unpreserved is any claim that the court failed to give adequate limiting instructions concerning this testimony. Defendant's argument is otherwise unavailing, as it is well established that "the meaning of coded communications is a proper subject of expert testimony" ( People v. Inoa, 25 N.Y.3d 466, 473, 13 N.Y.S.3d 329, 34 N.E.3d 839 [2015] ), as are a gang's "customs, hierarchies, and violent practices" ( People v. Bailey, 148 A.D.3d 547, 548, 50 N.Y.S.3d 53 [1st Dept. 2017], affd 32 N.Y.3d 70, 85 N.Y.S.3d 377, 110 N.E.3d 489 [2018] ). Unlike Inoa, in which the admission of the expert testimony was found to be error,...