People v. Page

• Decision Date: 26 April 2013
• Citation: 964 N.Y.S.2d 339,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02889,105 A.D.3d 1380
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Corlan PAGE, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

105 A.D.3d 1380

964 N.Y.S.2d 339

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02889

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Corlan PAGE, Defendant–Appellant.

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

April 26, 2013.

Thomas Theophilos, Buffalo, for Defendant–Appellant.

Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Nicholas T. Texido of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, two counts of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[1], [3] ), defendant contends that Supreme Court abused its discretion in precluding him from offering expert testimony on the reliabilityof eyewitness identifications. We reject that contention. “If ... sufficient evidence corroborates an eyewitness's identification of the defendant, then ... testimony concerning eyewitness identifications is unnecessary” ( People v. Santiago, 17 N.Y.3d 661, 669, 934 N.Y.S.2d 746, 958 N.E.2d 874;see People v. LeGrand, 8 N.Y.3d 449, 459, 835 N.Y.S.2d 523, 867 N.E.2d 374). Here, expert testimony was not required because “there were two strong eyewitness identifications, as well as many items of circumstantial evidence that, when viewed as a whole, provided substantial corroboration” ( People v. Munnerlyn, 92 A.D.3d 507, 507–508, 937 N.Y.S.2d 858,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 965, 950 N.Y.S.2d 117, 973 N.E.2d 215;see People v. Fernandez, 78 A.D.3d 726, 726–727, 910 N.Y.S.2d 140,lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 830, 921 N.Y.S.2d 194, 946 N.E.2d 182;People v. Smith, 57 A.D.3d 356, 357, 869 N.Y.S.2d 88,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 821, 881 N.Y.S.2d 29, 908 N.E.2d 937).

Contrary to defendant's contention, the court did not err in imposing a sanction other than dismissal of the charges based on the People's loss of a basketball jersey that was found in the vicinity of the crime scene and that matched the eyewitness descriptions of clothing worn by the perpetrator. It is within the sound discretion of the court to determine the appropriate sanctionfor the loss of evidence ( see People v. Kelly, 62 N.Y.2d 516, 521, 478 N.Y.S.2d 834, 467 N.E.2d 498), and the court's “ overriding concern must be to eliminate any prejudice to the defendant while protecting the interests of society” ( id. at 520, 478 N.Y.S.2d 834, 467 N.E.2d 498). “The loss or destruction of evidence prior to trial does not necessarily require dismissal of the charge[s] and indeed dismissal is considered a drastic remedy rarely invoked as an appropriate sanction for the People's failure to preserve evidence” ( People v. Haupt, 71 N.Y.2d 929, 931, 528 N.Y.S.2d 808, 524 N.E.2d 129). Here, defendant was able to mitigate any prejudice caused by the loss of the basketball jersey by cross-examining a police officer about the loss of the jersey and presenting evidence that, prior to the loss of the jersey, the People collected a DNA sample from it that did not match the DNA of defendant. In addition, defense counsel referred to the loss of the jersey in his summation. Under these circumstances, and “[g]iven that the exculpatory value of the missing evidence is completely speculative ..., the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the lesser sanction” of a permissive adverse inference instruction ( People v. Pfahler, 179 A.D.2d 1062, 1063, 579 N.Y.S.2d 520;see generally People v. Feliciano, 301 A.D.2d 480, 481, 753 N.Y.S.2d 511,lv. denied100 N.Y.2d 538, 763 N.Y.S.2d 3, 793 N.E.2d 417;People v. Hill, 266 A.D.2d 929, 929, 697 N.Y.S.2d 884,lv. denied94 N.Y.2d 903, 707 N.Y.S.2d 388, 728 N.E.2d 987).

Defendant contends that the prosecutor's peremptory challenges with respect to two prospective jurors constitute Batson violations. We reject that contention. The People offered race-neutral reasons for each peremptory challenge at issue, and the reasons were not pretextual ( see generally People v. Smocum, 99 N.Y.2d 418, 422, 757 N.Y.S.2d 239, 786 N.E.2d 1275;People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 109–110, 629 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 653 N.E.2d 1173). Specifically, the People explained that they used one peremptory challenge with respect to an African–American woman because her brother was a prison chaplain and she therefore was likely to be sympathetic to defendant ( see generally People v. McCoy, 46 A.D.3d 1348, 1349, 848 N.Y.S.2d 505,lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 813, 857 N.Y.S.2d 47, 886 N.E.2d 812). The People further explained that they used a peremptory challenge with respect to another African–American woman because, inter alia, she was blind in one eye and partially deaf in one ear and those disabilities may have affected her ability to see and hear the evidence at trial ( see People v. Falkenstein, 288 A.D.2d 922, 922, 732 N.Y.S.2d 817,lv. denied97 N.Y.2d 704, 739 N.Y.S.2d 104, 765 N.E.2d 307).

Although we agree with defendant that the prosecutor on summation improperly suggested that defendant had the burden of proof, we conclude that the prosecutor's “improper comment[s were] not so egregious that defendant was thereby deprived of a fair trial” ( People v. Willson, 272 A.D.2d 959, 960, 708 N.Y.S.2d 668,lv. denied95 N.Y.2d 873, 715 N.Y.S.2d 228, 738 N.E.2d 376). We note in particular that the court sustained defendant's objections to the improper comments and instructed the jury to disregard them, and the jury is presumed to have followed the court's instructions ( see generally People v. Wallace, 59 A.D.3d 1069, 1070, 873 N.Y.S.2d 403,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 861, 881 N.Y.S.2d 672, 909 N.E.2d 595). Moreover, “the court clearly and unequivocally instructed the jury that the burden of proof on all issues remained with the prosecution” ( People v. Pepe, 259 A.D.2d 949, 950, 689 N.Y.S.2d 310,lv. denied93 N.Y.2d 1024, 697 N.Y.S.2d 583, 719 N.E.2d 944;see People v. Matthews, 27 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 811 N.Y.S.2d 514). Defendant concedes that his remaining contentions concerning prosecutorial misconduct during summation are not preserved for our review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Cox, 21 A.D.3d 1361, 1363–1364, 802 N.Y.S.2d 813,lv. denied6 N.Y.3d 753, 810 N.Y.S.2d 421, 843 N.E.2d 1161). In any event, “ ‘[t]he [remaining] challenged remarks generally constituted fair comment on the evidence and [the] reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, and ... were responsive to defense arguments' ” ( People v. Taylor, 68 A.D.3d 1728, 1728, 891 N.Y.S.2d 822,lv. denied14 N.Y.3d 845, 901 N.Y.S.2d 151, 927 N.E.2d 572).

Defendant contends that the court erred in allowing the People to present evidence of a prior conviction by presenting testimony concerning the existence of defendant's fingerprints in the system. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Crump, 77 A.D.3d 1335, 1336, 909 N.Y.S.2d 252,lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 857, 923 N.Y.S.2d 419, 947 N.E.2d 1198), and we conclude in any event that the People did not in fact thereby present evidence of a prior conviction. “[T]he testimony of a detective that the defendant's fingerprints were already in the system, which was not specifically identified as police-related, did not compel the inference that the defendant had a past criminal history” ( People v. Clemmons, 83 A.D.3d 859, 860, 921 N.Y.S.2d 131,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 971, 950 N.Y.S.2d 354, 973 N.E.2d 764;see People v. Henry, 71 A.D.3d 1159, 1160, 901 N.Y.S.2d 61,lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 774, 907 N.Y.S.2d 463, 933 N.E.2d 1056).

Defendant further contends that the court erred in refusing to suppress identification testimony on the ground that the photo array from which the identification was made was unduly suggestive. “Because the subjects depicted in the photo array [were] sufficiently similar in appearance so that the viewer's attention [was] not drawn to any one photograph in such a way as to...