People v. Maier

• Decision Date: 05 October 2010
• Citation: 77 A.D.3d 681,908 N.Y.S.2d 711
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Eric MAIER, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

908 N.Y.S.2d 711

77 A.D.3d 681

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Eric MAIER, appellant.

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

Oct. 5, 2010.

Bahn Herzfeld & Multer LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), for appellant, and appellantpro se.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Edward A. Bannan and Michael Blakey of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Braslow, J.), rendered March 31, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and failure to stop at a stop sign, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for a new trial.

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was not afforded the opportunity to testify before the grand jury, and that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel in that respect, was properly denied ( seeCPL 210.20[1][c];CPL 210.35[4], 190.50[5][a];People v. Simmons,10 N.Y.3d 946, 949, 862 N.Y.S.2d 852, 893 N.E.2d 130;People v. Wiggins,89 N.Y.2d 872, 873, 653 N.Y.S.2d 91, 675 N.E.2d 845;People v. Helm,51 N.Y.2d 853, 433 N.Y.S.2d 757, 413 N.E.2d 1172;People v. Lasher,74 A.D.3d 1474, 902 N.Y.S.2d 262).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution( seePeople v. Contes,60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5];People v. Danielson,9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( seePeople v. Romero,7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

A new trial is required, however, because the cumulative effect of certain trial errors deprived the defendant of a fair trial ( seePeople v. Roll,1 A.D.3d 617, 767 N.Y.S.2d 467;People v. Vasquez,120 A.D.2d 757, 502 N.Y.S.2d 282).During an automobile stop for failure to obey a stop sign, the arresting police officer detected the odor of marijuana emanating from the defendant's car, and observed, in plain view, objects that the officer believed to be a marijuana cigarette and a "crack pipe."A subsequent search of the defendant's person revealed an unmarked bottle containing pills later determined to contain a narcotic, prescription drug, as well as a small bag containing a substance the officer believed to be marijuana.After placing the defendant in his police vehicle, the officer returned to the defendant's vehicle and found three bags of what the officer believed to be marijuana.The defendant was not charged with respect to the marijuana or the "crack pipe," but was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree with respect to the narcotic, prescription drug.At trial, the defendant's mother testified that she had been driving the defendant's car earlier in the day, that she had placed a certain number of narcotic pills for which she had a valid prescription in the unmarked bottle in contemplation of a trip she was taking that evening, and that she had inadvertently dropped the bottle on the floor of the defendant's car.According to the defendant's mother, the defendant was unaware of the contents of the pill bottle.

Contrary to the People's contention, the evidence that the police officer recovered a "crack pipe" and what appeared to be marijuana from the defendant's person, as well as what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette and three bags of what appeared to be marijuana from the defendant's car, was not properly admitted to "complete the narrative" or to explain the police officer's conduct ( cf.People v. Tosca,98 N.Y.2d 660, 746 N.Y.S.2d 276, 773 N.E.2d 1014;People v. Till,87 N.Y.2d 835, 837, 637 N.Y.S.2d 681, 661 N.E.2d 153;People v. Jenkins,49 A.D.3d 780, 853 N.Y.S.2d 629).Significantly, the defendant did not place the propriety of the police action in issue, nor did he dispute that he possessed the narcotics.Under these circumstances, the evidence of theuncharged conduct was not needed to "sort out ambiguous but material facts"( People v. Resek,3 N.Y.3d 385, 390, 787 N.Y.S.2d 683, 821 N.E.2d 108;seePeople v. Wilkinson,71 A.D.3d 249, 892 N.Y.S.2d 535;People v. Foster,295 A.D.2d 110, 112-113, 743 N.Y.S.2d 429).Moreover, even if the evidence had been probative of an issue other than the defendant's criminal propensity to commit the crime charged, such limited probative value would have been outweighed by the prejudicial impact of the testimony ( seePeople v. Resek,3 N.Y.3d at 389, 787 N.Y.S.2d 683, 821 N.E.2d 108;People v. Foster,295 A.D.2d at 112-113, 743 N.Y.S.2d 429).Accordingly,...