People v. Major

• Decision Date: 10 June 1998
• Citation: People v. Major, 675 N.Y.S.2d 260, 251 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
• Parties: , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5672 PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jerome MAJOR, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 260

675 N.Y.S.2d 260

251 A.D.2d 999, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5672

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jerome MAJOR, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

June 10, 1998.

Edward J. Nowak by Kathleen McDonough, Rochester, for Appellant.

Howard R. Relin by Robert Mastrocola, Rochester, for Respondent.

Before DENMAN, P.J., and LAWTON, WISNER, BALIO and BOEHM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant contends that County Court erred in permitting the People to read into evidence the Grand Jury testimony of his mother as part of their case-in-chief. We disagree. Out-of-court statements, including Grand Jury testimony, may be admitted as part of the People's case-in-chief where the witness is unavailable to testify at trial and the People establish by clear and convincing evidence that the unavailability of the witness was the result of "the misconduct of the defendant personally, or of others on his or her behalf with the defendant's knowing acquiescence" (People v. Maher, 89 N.Y.2d 456, 461, 654 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 677 N.E.2d 728; see, People v. Geraci, 85 N.Y.2d 359, 366-371, 625 N.Y.S.2d 469, 649 N.E.2d 817). At a Sirois hearing (see, Matter of Holtzman v. Hellenbrand, 92 A.D.2d 405, 460 N.Y.S.2d 591), the People presented proof that, in a telephone conversation on Christmas Day 1994, defendant swore at his mother and stated, "How can you testify against me and put me away the rest of my life. I wish I wasn't your son and I don't want to talk to you anymore". Those comments implicitly pressured defendant's mother not to testify at trial. The People also presented the testimony of jail personnel that, during a telephone conversation after defendant's mother failed to appear to testify at trial, defendant stated, "Tell her it's only going to be a little while longer" and "Let her know it's the only way this is going to work out for me". Because the testimony of defendant's mother was critical to the People's case, it is reasonable to infer that the latter statement of defendant referred to his mother. Additionally, during that conversation, defendant mentioned the name "Latta," his mother's maiden name. "[T]he cumulative evidence and the inferences that logically flow therefrom were sufficient to support [the trial court's] determination * * *, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that defendant either was responsible for or had acquiesced in the conduct that rendered [the witness] unavailable for trial" (People v. Geraci, supra, at 370, 625 N.Y.S.2d 469, 649 N.E.2d 817).

We reject the contention of defendant that the court erred in failing to grant his request for a circumstantial evidence charge. The admissions of defendant constitute direct evidence of his guilt, and thus a circumstantial evidence charge was not required (see, People v. Daddona, 81 N.Y.2d 990, 599 N.Y.S.2d 530, 615 N.E.2d 1014; People v. Reed, 247 A.D.2d 900, 668 N.Y.S.2d 858). We likewise reject the contention that the statements of defendant's mother were barred by the common-law parent-child...