People v. Hawkins
Decision Date | 25 November 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 179.,No. 175.,175.,179. |
Citation | 900 N.E.2d 946,11 N.Y.3d 484 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bryan R. HAWKINS, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Juan Eduardo, Appellant. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The issue common to these otherwise unrelated criminal appeals is the preservation for this Court's review of defendants' challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence.
On November 27, 2002, at approximately 2:00 P.M., Thomas Gallina called 911 and reported that someone with a hammer was breaking into his home. The operator heard Gallina yell for the intruder to leave and to let go, and then could hear only Gallina's moaning. When the police arrived shortly thereafter, they found Gallina, alone, on the kitchen floor in a pool of blood with several gruesome head injuries that later resulted in his death.
The police saw tire tracks on the driveway and footprints near various entrances to Gallina's house, which they later learned were defendant's. Meanwhile, from a doorway in the house a police investigator collected blood evidence on a swab, "G," placed it in a box marked "G," and set it on top of a filing cabinet in the study; police later learned it was defendant's blood. When the police left the house, the only people remaining there were family members, who cleaned up the broken glass, boarded up a broken window and locked the doors. None of them approached the filing cabinet where the swab was located.
Hours later, the police realized they were missing swab "G" and returned to the house, but it was locked. After obtaining a key from Gallina's sister and entering the house, an investigator found box "G" behind the filing cabinet, between the cabinet and the wall, took it back with him to the police station and sealed the evidence. At trial, the investigator testified that the box he retrieved had not been opened because, had it been, the box would have been creased or "dog-eared." The swab was inside the box and appeared unchanged.
A grand jury indicted defendant for depraved indifference murder, felony murder and burglary in the second degree. At the close of trial, defendant moved for an order of dismissal as follows:
After the trial court denied the motion, the jury convicted defendant of all three charged counts. The Appellate Division affirmed, 3-2, concluding that defendant's legal sufficiency claim was unpreserved and that the People had proved a chain of custody for the blood evidence (48 A.D.3d 1279, 851 N.Y.S.2d 789 [2008]). One of the dissenting Justices granted leave to appeal, and we affirm.
At 5:00 P.M. on April 13, 2005, Detectives Molina and Lansing, Sergeant Goggin, Undercover Officer 7567 and several other officers conducted a buy-and-bust operation in Manhattan. While driving around in an unmarked car, Molina and the undercover officer saw Adam Sanchez sell marihuana to an unidentified buyer on the sidewalk near where they were parked.
After the buyer walked away, the undercover exited the car. Sanchez called out "Weed." The undercover approached Sanchez asking Sanchez confirmed that he had "dimes," and the undercover requested two bags. Sanchez gave the undercover two bags of marihuana in exchange for $20 prerecorded buy money. When the undercover asked whether Sanchez was also selling cocaine, he said, "[G]ive me a few minutes." Sanchez then approached defendant and Freddy Perez, who were standing a few feet away, near a bodega. The undercover pretended to converse with Molina, who observed Sanchez, Perez and defendant talking to one another Perez walked west, while Sanchez and defendant stayed near the bodega.
During the brief time Perez was out of sight, Molina testified that defendant looked "westbound ... eastbound ... north and south." Perez then returned to the corner, where defendant stood, and placed a small object in the coin slot of a public telephone. Perez spoke to defendant and gestured to Sanchez. Sanchez then removed the object from the coin slot as defendant watched, "looking north and southbound." Sanchez gave Perez money, walked up to the undercover and handed her a clear bag containing cocaine, and the undercover gave Sanchez $30 in prerecorded buy money. During the cocaine transaction, defendant and Perez waited at the corner for a short time, then the two entered a double-parked van and drove away. Police pulled the van over, arrested defendant and Perez, and separately arrested Sanchez, who had $30 in prerecorded buy money and some marihuana. Laboratory tests proved that the purchase was cocaine.
A grand jury indicted all three defendants for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. At the close of the People's case at trial, defendant moved for a trial order of dismissal:
The jury convicted defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. On defendant's appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and constitutional claims were unpreserved, and in any event lacked merit (44 A.D.3d 371, 844 N.Y.S.2d 11 [2007]). A Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal (10 N.Y.3d 764, 854 N.Y.S.2d 326, 883 N.E.2d 1261 [2008]), and we affirm.
Preservation—or, more precisely, the lack of preservation—frequently accounts for the disposition of criminal cases in this Court. The issue, therefore, again merits some elaboration, not only to explain the result in the appeals before us but also in the interest of encouraging that a proper record be made in the first instance.
Analysis begins with the State Constitution's general limitation of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to questions of law (N.Y. Const, art VI, § 3; see People v. Belge, 41 N.Y.2d 60, 62, 390 N.Y.S.2d 867 359 N.E.2d 377 [1976])1. Among the kinds of determinations of reversal or modification deemed to be upon the law, the Criminal Procedure Law provides that "evidence adduced at a trial resulting in a judgment was not legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of an offense of which he was convicted" (CPL 470.15[4][b]).
The Criminal Procedure Law further provides that a question of law arises in a criminal proceeding when
(CPL 470.05[2]).
To preserve for this Court's review a challenge to the legal sufficiency of a conviction, a defendant must move for a trial order of dismissal, and the argument must be "specifically directed" at the error being urged (People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 [1995]; People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 62, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329 [2001]). As we have repeatedly made clear—and underscore again—general motions simply do not create questions of law for this Court's review (see People v. Finger, 95 N.Y.2d 894, 895, 716 N.Y.S.2d 34, 739 N.E.2d 290 [2000]; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, 859, 523 N.Y.S.2d 492, 518 N.E.2d 4 [1987]; People v. Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048, 442 N.Y.S.2d 488, 425 N.E.2d 876 [1981]; People v. Cona, 49 N.Y.2d 26, 33 n. 2, 424 N.Y.S.2d 146, 399 N.E.2d 1167 [1979]...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cotto v. Fischer
...argument must be raised at trial and must be "specifically directed" toward the particular alleged error. See People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 399 (2008); People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 175 (1995). Furthermore, New York's contemporaneous-objectio......
-
Petronio v. Walsh
...a reviewable issue, it must be "specifically directed" at the alleged deficiency in the evidence. People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 (2008) (quoting People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 (1995) (explaining that "even where a ......
-
Swail v. Hunt
...and specific objection to the alleged error in order to preserve the objection for appellate review. People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 (2008); People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d at 62, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329. With regard to the necessity of making a t......
-
Maltese v. Colvin
...in his main and pro se supplemental briefs that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction (see People v Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492 Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349 [2007]), we ......
-
Table of cases
...628 N.Y.S.2d 939 (1995), § 2:30 People v. Hausman, 285 A.D.2d 352, 727 N.Y.S.2d 109 (1st Dept. 2001), §§ 2:140, 2:210 People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395 (2008), §§ 1:50, 9:80 People v. Hawthorne, 80 N.Y.2d 873, 587 N.Y.S.2d 600 (1992), § 2:270 People v. Hayes, 17 N.Y.3d 46, ......
-
Objections & related procedures
...based on failure to make out a prima facie case. Objections “must be specifically directed, at the error being urged.” People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395 (2008). In addition, when a party requests or the court makes a ruling or order, the party must make known to the court t......
-
Real evidence
...established circumstances providing reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the ammunition. People v. Hawkins , 11 N.Y.3d 484, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395 (2008). Claim that there was a gap in the chain of custody of a blood swab was meritless where a short time transpired bet......
-
Objections & related procedures
...based on failure to make out a prima facie case. Objections “must be speciically directed, at the error being urged.” People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395 (2008); People v. Turner , 137 A.D.3d 463, 464, 26 N.Y.S.3d 281, 282 (1st Dept. 2016) (“Defendant’s other evidentiary clai......