People v. Maxam
| Decision Date | 16 January 2003 |
| Citation | 301 A.D.2d 791,753 N.Y.S.2d 599 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>JUNE MAXAM, Appellant. |
Defendant stands convicted of two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree following a jury trial based on allegations that she filed criminal complaints and supporting depositions against two of her neighbors, Donald Lambert and Eleanor Lambert, falsely accusing each of stalking and harassing her between May 11, 1998 and August 24, 1998. The proof at trial established that any and all harassing behavior between these parties was in fact committed by defendant and not either of the Lamberts. Sentenced to concurrent nine-month jail terms on each count, defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, as well as from the denial of her subsequent CPL article 440 motion.
The record reveals that defendant has had a long and tortured relationship with the Lamberts, as well as just about every elected official and police agency in her community. Defendant claims that all of these people have a demonstrated animus toward her because she has criticized them in a local newspaper that she intermittently publishes. Thus, defendant claims that the instant charges stem from a biased police investigation and are vengeful and retaliatory in nature. Indeed, with repeated references to this being nothing more than a case of "small town enemies" retaliating over such newspaper articles, defendant first argues that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence in that two elements were not proven, namely, knowledge that the charges she filed against the Lamberts were false and intent to defraud (see Penal Law § 175.35).
To be sure, while the parties' inability to reside peacefully with each other in the same community could have once been classified as a mere "small town feud," defendant elevated the situation into the criminal arena by continually harassing the Lamberts and by thereafter filing criminal complaints against them, accusing them of the very same conduct which she herself had perpetrated on them. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, and according the jury's credibility determinations due deference, we find no basis to disturb the guilty verdict (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495; see also People v Stumbrice, 194 AD2d 931, 934, lv denied 82 NY2d 727). According to the testimony of Eleanor Lambert, defendant has been following her around town on a near daily basis for over a decade, shouting obscenities at her, making offensive hand gestures and purportedly taking her picture. Thus, in June 1998, Eleanor Lambert went to the Warren County Sheriff's Department and requested that a complaint be filed against defendant for harassment and stalking, a request that she had repeatedly made in the past to no avail.
Following a detailed investigation, which included a two-week surveillance of defendant, the Sheriff's Department charged defendant with harassment in the first degree and menacing in the second degree. Defendant, in turn, filed the allegedly false criminal complaints against the Lamberts. At the trial on the subject charges, Eleanor Lambert categorically denied engaging in any of the conduct alleged by defendant and specifically denied ever harassing or following her. In fact, she testified that she was afraid of her. Donald Lambert also denied engaging in the conduct of which he was accused and denied ever harassing defendant.
Most significantly, it was revealed that on certain dates that defendant claimed to have been harassed by the Lamberts, she herself was under surveillance by the Sheriff's Department and the investigating officer observed no such conduct by them. To the contrary, this officer's surveillance of defendant between June 30, 1998 and July 16, 1998 revealed that she constantly followed Eleanor Lambert, yelled obscenities at her and took or pretended to take her photograph. The jury was entitled to credit these witnesses' testimony and to conclude that defendant knew that the allegations contained in her complaints and supporting depositions were false. Moreover, her intent to defraud the state is readily inferable from these facts (see People v Rubin, 286 AD2d 555, lv denied 97 NY2d 733; People v Stumbrice, supra at 934), particularly since the complaints requested that arrest warrants and orders of protection be issued.
Defendant also claims on appeal that her local community's demonstrated hostility and bias against her tainted the instant trial. Specifically, she accuses County Court of being prejudiced against her and argues that the court should have recused itself from the case. Aside from the fact that this issue is unpreserved for review since defendant never moved for recusal or objected to any conduct of County Court during trial (see People v Darling, 276 AD2d 922, 924, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Barnes
...record does not support his claim of bias on the part of the court and, thus, recusal was not required (see People v. Maxam , 301 A.D.2d 791, 793, 753 N.Y.S.2d 599 [3d Dept. 2003], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 617, 757 N.Y.S.2d 828, 787 N.E.2d 1174 [2003] ; see generally People v. Moreno , 70 N.Y.2......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...568; People v. Casey, 61 A.D.3d 1011, 1014, 876 N.Y.S.2d 532; People v. Love, 307 A.D.2d 528, 532, 762 N.Y.S.2d 162; People v. Maxam, 301 A.D.2d 791, 793, 753 N.Y.S.2d 599). The County Court properly denied the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30(1), since the......
-
People v. Persaud
...568;People v. Casey, 61 A.D.3d 1011, 1014, 876 N.Y.S.2d 532;People v. Love, 307 A.D.2d 528, 532, 762 N.Y.S.2d 162;People v. Maxam, 301 A.D.2d 791, 793, 753 N.Y.S.2d 599). The defendant argues that some of the comments made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of his right to a fa......
-
People v. Ramos
...N.Y.S.2d 568 ; People v. Casey, 61 A.D.3d 1011, 876 N.Y.S.2d 532 ; People v. Love, 307 A.D.2d 528, 762 N.Y.S.2d 162 ; People v. Maxam, 301 A.D.2d 791, 753 N.Y.S.2d 599 ).In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; Peop......