People v. Hamilton

• Decision Date: 15 June 2012
• Citation: 96 A.D.3d 1518,947 N.Y.S.2d 705,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04844
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Adam J. HAMILTON, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

96 A.D.3d 1518

947 N.Y.S.2d 705

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04844

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Adam J. HAMILTON, Defendant–Appellant.

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

June 15, 2012.

Patricia M. McGrath, Lockport, for Defendant–Appellant.

Adam J. Hamilton, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se.

Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Thomas H. Brandt of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of two counts of attempted murder in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.27[1][a][i]; [b] ) and one count each of attempted murder in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 125.25[1] ) and aggravated criminal contempt (§ 215.52[1] ). Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request to charge the jury on attempted murder in the second degree as a lesser included offense of one of the counts of attempted murder in the first degree. We conclude that defendant waived his contention by withdrawing his request for that charge ( see People v. Gomez, 297 A.D.2d 388, 746 N.Y.S.2d 609;People v. Hernandez, 297 A.D.2d 389, 746 N.Y.S.2d 610).

Defendant further contends that the court erred in allowing a police investigator, whom we note had extensive training regarding crime scene reconstruction, to testify with respect to possible bullet trajectories because he was not qualified and usurped the jury's fact-finding function. That contention is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant failed to object to the investigator's testimony on those grounds ( see generally People v. Osuna, 65 N.Y.2d 822, 824, 493 N.Y.S.2d 119, 482 N.E.2d 915;People v. Smith, 24 A.D.3d 1253, 806 N.Y.S.2d 825,lv. denied6 N.Y.3d 818, 812 N.Y.S.2d 458, 845 N.E.2d 1289). In any event, “[i]t is well established that the admissibility and scope of expert testimony is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” ( People v. Fish, 235 A.D.2d 578, 579, 652 N.Y.S.2d 124,lv. denied89 N.Y.2d 1092, 660 N.Y.S.2d 386, 682 N.E.2d 987;see People v. Cronin, 60 N.Y.2d 430, 433, 470 N.Y.S.2d 110, 458 N.E.2d 351). Where a police investigator has sufficient “practical experience ..., his [or her] lack of formal education in ballistics and trajectories” may not disqualify the investigator from testifying with respect thereto ( People v. Brockenshire, 245 A.D.2d 1065, 1065–1066, 666 N.Y.S.2d 73,lv. denied91 N.Y.2d 940, 671 N.Y.S.2d 720, 694 N.E.2d 889). We further conclude that the court properly admitted in evidence the testimony of the People's expert reconstruction witness, inasmuch as it was based on his specialized knowledge and was helpful in aiding the jury to reach its verdict ( see People v. Brown, 97 N.Y.2d 500, 505, 743 N.Y.S.2d 374, 769 N.E.2d 1266;Cronin, 60 N.Y.2d at 432–433, 470 N.Y.S.2d 110, 458 N.E.2d 351).

We reject defendant's contention that the treating physician of one of the victims should not have been permitted to testify that a projectile from a shotgun caused the victim's injuries. The physician testified that he has been employed as a trauma surgeon since 1991, is board certifiedin critical care and general surgery and has seen and treated several hundred patients with gunshot wounds. Consequently, we conclude that the court properly determined that the physician had “the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience” to provide a reliable opinion ( Matott v. Ward, 48 N.Y.2d 455, 459, 423 N.Y.S.2d 645, 399 N.E.2d 532;see People v. Geraci, 254 A.D.2d 522, 524, 681 N.Y.S.2d 362). We reject defendant's further contention in his main and pro se supplemental briefs that the court erred in ordering that the sentences imposed for attempted murder in the first degree run consecutively to each other. “[W]here, as here, separate acts are committed against different victims during the same criminal transaction, the court may properly impose consecutive sentences in the exercise of its discretion” ( People v. Jones, 79 A.D.3d 1773, 1774, 917 N.Y.S.2d 445,lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 832, 921 N.Y.S.2d 196, 946 N.E.2d 184). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Defendant's remaining contentions are raised in his pro se supplemental brief. We reject his contention that the court erred in refusing to charge assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[2] ) as a lesser included offense of attempted murder in the second degree ( see People v. Hymes, 70 A.D.3d 1371, 1372–1373, 895 N.Y.S.2d 273,lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 774, 907 N.Y.S.2d 463, 933 N.E.2d 1056;see generally People v. Green, 56 N.Y.2d 427, 430–432, 452...