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.

908 N.Y.S.2d 711

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

77 A.D.3d 681

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.

908 N.Y.S.2d 712

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 ( see CPL 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

77 A.D.3d 682

( see People 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 ( see CPL 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 ( see People 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 ( see People 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...