People v. Heimroth

• Decision Date: 05 March 2020
• Docket Number: 109074
• Citation: 181 A.D.3d 967,119 N.Y.S.3d 627
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jacob HEIMROTH, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

181 A.D.3d 967

119 N.Y.S.3d 627

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Jacob HEIMROTH, Appellant.

109074

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

Decided and Entered: March 5, 2020

Calendar Date: January 13, 2020

Sandra M. Colatosti, Albany, for appellant.

Mary Pat Donnelly, District Attorney, Troy (Jacob B. Sher of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Aarons and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Aarons, J.

In August 2014, defendant and a childhood acquaintance went to the victims' trailer and killed them. Victim 1 was struck multiple times by an aluminum bat and victim 2 was repeatedly hit with a two-by-four. In September 2014, defendant was charged by indictment with multiple crimes stemming from the deaths of victims 1 and 2. In July 2015, however, the indictment was dismissed on the basis that the evidence presented to the grand jury was not legally sufficient. The People were granted leave to re-present and an indictment in August 2015 followed. Prior to trial, defendant moved to dismiss the August 2015 indictment on the ground that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. Supreme Court denied the motion. A jury trial was held, after which defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree (two counts) and grand larceny in the fourth degree. Defendant's subsequent motion to set aside the verdict under CPL 330.30(1) was denied. The court then sentenced defendant to a term of imprisonment. This appeal ensued. We affirm.

Defendant premises his legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence arguments on what he claims was a lack of evidence to corroborate the acquaintance's testimony that defendant participated in the crimes at issue. "A defendant may not be convicted of any offense upon the testimony of an accomplice unsupported by corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of such offense" ( CPL 60.22[1] ; People v. Fields , 160 A.D.3d 1116, 1117, 75 N.Y.S.3d 617 [2018], lvs denied 31 N.Y.3d 1116, 1120, 81 N.Y.S.3d 376, 379, 106 N.E.3d 759, 762 [2018]; People v. Furman, 152 A.D.3d 870, 871, 59 N.Y.S.3d 165 [2018], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1060, 71 N.Y.S.3d 10, 94 N.E.3d 492 [2018] ). "The corroborative evidence need only tend to connect the defendant to the crime; it need not establish all the elements of the offense" ( People v. Steinberg , 79 N.Y.2d 673, 683, 584 N.Y.S.2d 770, 595 N.E.2d 845 [1992] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see People v. Matthews , 101 A.D.3d 1363, 1365, 956 N.Y.S.2d 317 [2012], lvs denied 20 N.Y.3d 1101, 1104, 965 N.Y.S.2d 797, 801, 988 N.E.2d 535, 539 [2013]; People v. Duncan , 256 A.D.2d 1016, 1017, 683 N.Y.S.2d 327 [1998], lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 873, 689 N.Y.S.2d 434, 711 N.E.2d 648 [1999] ).

At trial, the acquaintance testified that, on the night in question, he and defendant first went to the house of one of defendant's friends. After they left, defendant and the acquaintance retrieved an aluminum bat at defendant's house and went to the river where they drank beers and consumed drugs. The acquaintance testified that he was not happy that victim 1, who was married to victim 2, was dating his aunt and so he and defendant walked to the victims' trailer to "pay him a visit." While en route, defendant picked up a two-by-four. They arrived at the trailer, and they each kicked down the door. After they entered, victim 1 was beaten with the aluminum bat and victim 2 was bludgeoned with the two-by-four. The acquaintance then rummaged through the victims' dresser in the bedroom for money but was unsuccessful. They eventually left the trailer, took victim 1's Ford Escape and drove away.

To corroborate the acquaintance's testimony, the People offered the testimony of defendant's friend, who stated that both defendant and the acquaintance came to his house late one night in August 2014. Another friend testified that on one morning in August 2014, defendant and the acquaintance appeared at her house in a Ford Escape. The victims' neighbor testified that she called 911 after having observed two people run around the victims' car before it was driven away.¹ One of the acquaintance's relatives testified that she drove defendant and the acquaintance in her car and that, after doing so, she found a blue fleece sweatshirt in the back seat where defendant had been sitting. The acquaintance's aunt testified that victim 1 kept extra clothes in his car and, on one instance, he retrieved a blue fleece sweatshirt from the car for her to wear. The People also offered photographs of the victims' door depicting two separate footprints and the testimony of a medical examiner attesting that victim 2's bruising and abrasions were caused by a rectangular object. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the acquaintance's testimony was more than adequately corroborated (see People v. Malak , 117 A.D.3d 1170, 1173–1174, 984 N.Y.S.2d 666 [2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 1086, 1 N.Y.S.3d 12, 25 N.E.3d 349 [2014] ; People v. Walton , 16 A.D.3d 903, 904, 791 N.Y.S.2d 712 [2005], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 796, 801 N.Y.S.2d 816, 835 N.E.2d 676 [2005] ; People v. Lawrence , 1 A.D.3d 625, 626–627, 766 N.Y.S.2d 261 [2003], lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 630, 777 N.Y.S.2d 28, 808 N.E.2d 1287 [2004] ; People v. Riddick , 246 A.D.2d 821, 822–823, 667 N.Y.S.2d 810 [1998], lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 944, 671 N.Y.S.2d 724, 694 N.E.2d 893 [1998] ).

Defendant asserts that almost 23 months passed from when he was initially indicted in September 2014 to when trial commenced in July 2016 and that, as a consequence, he was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. When assessing whether a criminal defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, "[t]he five factors to be considered are: (1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charges; (4) any extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) any impairment of [the] defendant's defense" ( People v. Romeo , 12 N.Y.3d 51, 55, 876 N.Y.S.2d 666, 904 N.E.2d 802 [2009], cert denied 558 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 63, 175 L.Ed.2d 24 [2009] ; see People v. Anderson , 114 A.D.3d 1083, 1084, 981 N.Y.S.2d 200 [2014], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1196, 986 N.Y.S.2d 417, 9 N.E.3d 912 [2014] ). The time period at issue is substantial and, in the absence of any justification, would be viewed as excessive (see People v. Romeo , 12 N.Y.3d at 56, 876 N.Y.S.2d 666, 904 N.E.2d 802 ). Although defendant has been incarcerated for the entire period, the charges involved serious crimes (see People v. Decker , 13 N.Y.3d 12, 15, 884 N.Y.S.2d 662, 912 N.E.2d 1041 [2009] ; People v. Swan , 90 A.D.3d 1146, 1147, 934 N.Y.S.2d 583 [2011] ). Furthermore, defendant's cursory claim that the memory of witnesses has faded due to the passage of time is "too speculative to carry significant weight" when assessing the various factors ( People v. Chaplin , 134 A.D.3d 1148, 1150, 21 N.Y.S.3d 418 [2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1067, 38 N.Y.S.3d 837, 60 N.E.3d 1203 [2016] ). The record also discloses that much of the delay was occasioned by various routine pretrial matters as opposed to prosecutorial inaction. Accordingly, we cannot say that defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see People v. Williams , 163 A.D.3d 1283, 1285–1286, 82 N.Y.S.3d 646 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1069, 89 N.Y.S.3d 124, 113 N.E.3d 958 [2018] ; People v. McNeal , 91 A.D.3d 1204, 1205, 936 N.Y.S.2d 783 [2012], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 996, 945 N.Y.S.2d 650, 968 N.E.2d 1006 [2012] ; People v. Rogers , 8 A.D.3d 888, 889–890, 780 N.Y.S.2d 393 [2004] ; People v. Rouse , 4 A.D.3d 553, 556, 771 N.Y.S.2d 579 [2004], lv denied 2 N.Y.3d 805, 781 N.Y.S.2d 305, 814 N.E.2d 477 [2004] ).

We reject defendant's assertion that Supreme Court erred in admitting photographs of the victims' deceased bodies. "[P]hotographs are admissible if they tend to prove or disprove a disputed or material issue, to illustrate or elucidate other relevant evidence, or to corroborate or disprove some other evidence offered or to be offered" ( People v. Wood , 79 N.Y.2d 958, 960, 582 N.Y.S.2d 992, 591 N.E.2d 1178 [1992] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ). Despite the graphic nature of the photographs, they were relevant on the issue of intent and to show the locations of one of the victims' bodies, the severity of the inflicted injuries and the nature of the weapon used upon each victim (see People v. Stevens , 76 N.Y.2d 833, 836, 560 N.Y.S.2d 119, 559 N.E.2d 1278 [1990] ; People v. Stover , 178 A.D.3d 1138, 1144, 115 N.Y.S.3d 500 [2019] ; People v. Powell , 115 A.D.3d 998, 1000, 981 N.Y.S.2d 817 [2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 1024, 992 N.Y.S.2d 806, 16 N.E.3d 1286 [2014] ). Given that the People did not admit the photographs for the sole purpose of "arousing the emotions of the jury and to prejudice defendant" ( People v. Greenfield , 167 A.D.3d 1060, 1063, 89 N.Y.S.3d 461 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1204, 99 N.Y.S.3d 245, 122 N.E.3d 1157 [2019] [internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipsis and citation omitted] ) and taking into account the court's cautionary instructions to the jury (see People v. Poulin , 159 A.D.3d 1049, 1051–1052, 71 N.Y.S.3d 227 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 940, 84 N.Y.S.3d 867, 109 N.E.3d 1167 [2018] ), we find that there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of the photographs (see People v. Ford , 43 A.D.3d 571, 574, 840 N.Y.S.2d 668 [2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 1033, 852 N.Y.S.2d 19, 881 N.E.2d 1206 [2008] ; People v. Mastropietro , 232 A.D.2d 725, 726, 648 N.Y.S.2d 752 [1996], lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1038, 659 N.Y.S.2d 869, 681 N.E.2d 1316 [1997] ; People v. Webb , 184 A.D.2d 920, 920, 584 N.Y.S.2d 935 [1992], lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 935, 589 N.Y.S.2d 863, 603 N.E.2d 968 [1992] ).

We also find that Supreme Court provided a meaningful response to the jury's note and correctly denied defendant's...