People v. Mattison

• Decision Date: 20 June 2018
• Docket Number: Ind. No. 228/12,2015–03631
• Citation: 162 A.D.3d 905,79 N.Y.S.3d 274
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ernest MATTISON, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

162 A.D.3d 905
79 N.Y.S.3d 274

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Ernest MATTISON, appellant.

2015–03631
Ind. No. 228/12

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

Argued—February 16, 2018
June 20, 2018

79 N.Y.S.3d 275

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Karen M. Kalikow and Mary Beth Peppito of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and William H. Branigan of counsel), for respondent.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, ROBERT J. MILLER, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

79 N.Y.S.3d 276

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Deborah Stevens Modica, J.), rendered April 23, 2015, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Cecil Schiff (hereinafter the decedent) was murdered in September 1980 during a robbery of his apartment. With no eyewitnesses and no match to latent fingerprints that were recovered from the crime scene, the investigation stalled. In 2008, a detective with the New York City Police Department's Latent Print Unit randomly selected the case for fingerprint analysis, and determined that the defendant's fingerprints matched three fingerprints recovered from a jewelry box and two other boxes found in the decedent's bedroom. Further investigation revealed that the defendant, who was a 17–year–old high school student at the time of the murder, was absent from school on the day of the murder. The defendant was arrested and indicted in 2012, more than 31 years after the crime was committed. After a jury trial, he was found guilty of murder in the second degree.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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 of murder in the second degree 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 nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, 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 ).

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based on preindictment delay. The Court of Appeals has articulated the following factors to consider when determining whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial or due process right to prompt prosecution has been violated: (1) the extent of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the nature of the underlying charge, (4) whether there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration, and (5) whether there is any indication that the defense has been prejudiced by the delay (see People v. Decker, 13 N.Y.3d 12, 14–15, 884 N.Y.S.2d 662, 912 N.E.2d 1041 ; People v. Romeo, 12 N.Y.3d 51, 55, 876 N.Y.S.2d 666, 904 N.E.2d 802 ; People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303 ; see...