People v. Morman

• Decision Date: 23 December 2016
• Citation: 145 A.D.3d 1435,43 N.Y.S.3d 619,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08620
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jesse MORMAN, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

145 A.D.3d 1435

43 N.Y.S.3d 619

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08620

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Jesse MORMAN, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.).

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

Dec. 23, 2016.

Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Piotr Banasiak of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of two counts each of criminal sale of a controlled substance (CSCS) in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39[1] ) and criminal possession of a controlled substance (CPCS) in the third degree (§ 220.16[1] ) arising from defendant's sale of crack cocaine to an undercover police officer on two dates in January 2012. In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following the same jury trial of, inter alia, two counts each of CPCS in the third degree (§ 220.16[1] ) and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (§ 220.50[2], [3] ) arising from the discovery of cocaine, packaging materials, and a digital scale in defendant's vehicle following a traffic stop in April 2012.

Defendant contends in appeal No. 1 that County Court erred in refusing to suppress the undercover officer's identification testimony on the ground that the procedure was unduly suggestive because the single photograph that the undercover officer viewed before the controlled purchases tainted his post-purchase identifications of defendant as the seller. Defendant's contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as he failed to raise that specific contention either as part of his omnibus motion seeking suppression of the identification testimony or at the Wade hearing (see People v. Beaty, 89 A.D.3d 1414, 1416, 932 N.Y.S.2d 280, affd. 22 N.Y.3d 918, 977 N.Y.S.2d 172, 999 N.E.2d 535 ), nor did the court expressly decide the question raised on appeal (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Graham, 25 N.Y.3d 994, 997, 10 N.Y.S.3d 172, 32 N.E.3d 387 ). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ).

We reject defendant's contention in appeal No. 2 that the court erred in refusing to suppress the physical evidence recovered during an inventory search of his vehicle following the traffic stop initiated by a state trooper. "Following a lawful arrest of the driver of an automobile that must then be impounded, the police may conduct an inventory search of the vehicle" pursuant to established police regulations (People v. Johnson, 1 N.Y.3d 252, 255, 771 N.Y.S.2d 64, 803 N.E.2d 385 ). Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the initial determination of the police to impound the vehicle was proper inasmuch as defendant, who was the sole occupant of the vehicle, was placed under arrest after the Trooper discovered that he had an outstanding warrant, and thus was unable to drive the vehicle (see People v. Wilburn, 50 A.D.3d 1617, 1618, 856 N.Y.S.2d 767, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 742, 864 N.Y.S.2d 401, 894 N.E.2d 665 ; People v. Figueroa, 6 A.D.3d 720, 722, 776 N.Y.S.2d 574, lv. dismissed 3 N.Y.3d 640, 782 N.Y.S.2d 411, 816 N.E.2d 201 ). Contrary to defendant's further contention, "the police were not required to explore alternatives to impoundment" (Wilburn, 50 A.D.3d at 1618, 856 N.Y.S.2d 767 ; see People v. Walker, 20 N.Y.3d 122, 125, 957 N.Y.S.2d 272, 980 N.E.2d 937 ; People v. Schwing, 13 A.D.3d 725, 725–726, 786 N.Y.S.2d 249 ). The record does not support defendant's contention that the inventory search was a mere pretext to uncover incriminating evidence; rather, the testimony established that the Trooper's "intention for the search was to inventory the items in the vehicle" (People v. Padilla, 21 N.Y.3d 268, 273, 970 N.Y.S.2d 486, 992 N.E.2d 414, cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 325, 187 L.Ed.2d 158 ). We further conclude that, consistent with the state police regulations admitted in evidence at the hearing that defined the permissible scope of an inventory search, the Trooper acted reasonably in searching the open garbage bags he observed in the rear seat of the vehicle (see id. at 273, 970 N.Y.S.2d 486, 992 N.E.2d 414 ; see generally Walker, 20 N.Y.3d at 126, 957 N.Y.S.2d 272, 980 N.E.2d 937 ; People v. Galak, 80 N.Y.2d 715, 719, 594 N.Y.S.2d 689, 610 N.E.2d 362 ). Moreover, contrary to defendant's contention, the Trooper properly prepared a meaningful inventory list (cf. Johnson, 1 N.Y.3d at 256, 771 N.Y.S.2d 64, 803 N.E.2d 385 ; Galak, 80 N.Y.2d at 720, 594 N.Y.S.2d 689, 610 N.E.2d 362 ; see generally Walker, 20 N.Y.3d at 126, 957 N.Y.S.2d 272, 980 N.E.2d 937 ), and "[t]he inventory search was not rendered invalid because the [Trooper] failed to secure and catalogue every item found in the vehicle" (People v. Owens, 39 A.D.3d 1260, 1261, 836 N.Y.S.2d 385, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 849, 840 N.Y.S.2d 775, 872 N.E.2d 888 ).

We reject defendant's contention in both appeals that the court abused its discretion in granting the People's motion to consolidate the indictments for trial and denying defendant's subsequent request for reconsideration (see CPL 200.20[4] ; see generally People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1, 8, 451 N.Y.S.2d 6, 436 N.E.2d 456 ). The offenses arising from the two sales of crack cocaine in January 2012 were joinable with the offenses arising from the traffic stop in April 2012 pursuant to CPL 200.20(2) (b) because, under the applicable Molineux analysis (see People v. Coble, 168 A.D.2d 981, 982, 564 N.Y.S.2d 927, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 954, 573 N.Y.S.2d 649, 578 N.E.2d 447 ), the "[t]estimony concerning defendant's prior drug sales was admissible with respect to the issue of defendant's intent to sell" the cocaine discovered as a result of the traffic stop (People v. Whitfield, 115 A.D.3d 1181, 1182, 982 N.Y.S.2d 242, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1044, 993 N.Y.S.2d 258, 17 N.E.3d 513 ; see People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808 ; People v. Laws, 27 A.D.3d 1116, 1116–1117, 812 N.Y.S.2d 200, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 758, 819 N.Y.S.2d 883, 853 N.E.2d 254 ). In addition, the offenses in the indictments were joinable under CPL 200.20(2)(c) on the ground that they are "the same or similar in law" (see People v. Torres, 212 A.D.2d 968, 969, 624 N.Y.S.2d 691, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 742, 631 N.Y.S.2d 622, 655 N.E.2d 719 ). Contrary to defendant's contention that he demonstrated prejudice sufficient to defeat the motion for consolidation, we conclude that he failed to make the requisite convincing showing that he had important testimony to give with respect to the drug sale charges and a strong need to refrain from testifying with respect to the offenses arising from the traffic stop (see Lane, 56 N.Y.2d at 9–10, 451 N.Y.S.2d 6, 436 N.E.2d 456 ; People v. Miller, 43 A.D.3d 1381, 1382, 842 N.Y.S.2d 832, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 1036, 852 N.Y.S.2d 22, 881 N.E.2d 1209 ). Defendant's remaining contentions regarding consolidation of the indictments are unpreserved for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2 ] ), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ).

We reject defendant's further contention in both appeals that he was denied his right to an impartial jury on the ground that a panel of prospective jurors was tainted by the comments of two prospective jurors indicating that defendant was already guilty (see People v. Miller, 239 A.D.2d 787, 790, 658 N.Y.S.2d 482, affd. 91 N.Y.2d 372, 670 N.Y.S.2d 978, 694 N.E.2d 61 ; People v. Clark, 262 A.D.2d 233, 233–234, 694 N.Y.S.2d 13, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 1016, 697 N.Y.S.2d 574, 719 N.E.2d 935 ). The record establishes that the comments were overheard and reported by only one other prospective juror, the two prospective jurors were promptly excused by the court, and defense counsel thoroughly explored during further voir dire any potential influence or bias arising from the comments. We thus conclude that defendant's contention that the remaining jury panel was tainted by the comments is " ‘purely speculative’ " ( People v. Foose, 132 A.D.3d 1236, 1238, 16 N.Y.S.3d 875, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1145, 32 N.Y.S.3d 59, 51 N.E.3d 570, reconsideration denied 27 N.Y.3d 1132, 39 N.Y.S.3d 114, 61 N.E.3d 513 ).

Defendant contends in appeal No. 1 that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial after the People introduced identification testimony of an officer who had been conducting surveillance during one of the sales that had not been included in the pretrial CPL 710.30 notice. We reject that contention. Here, upon defense counsel's objection, the court struck the officer's testimony and instructed the jury to disregard it. We conclude that the court's curative instructions were sufficient to alleviate any prejudice to defendant resulting from that testimony, and thus the court properly exercised its discretion in denying his motion (see People v. Robinson, 309 A.D.2d 1228, 1229, 764 N.Y.S.2d 757, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 579, 775 N.Y.S.2d 795, 807 N.E.2d 908 ).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention in appeal No. 2 that the People elicited inadmissible hearsay testimony from a narcotics investigator (see CPL 470.05[2] ), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, any error by defense counsel in failing to object to the admission of the purported hearsay testimony was not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Galens, 111 A.D.3d 1322, 1323, 974 N.Y.S.2d 233, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1088, 981 N.Y.S.2d 673, 4 N.E.3d 975 ; see generally People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 ). We agree with defendant that the court...