People v. Patterson

• Decision Date: 14 June 2019
• Docket Number: 271,KA 15–00064
• Citation: 102 N.Y.S.3d 853,173 A.D.3d 1737
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rudy C. PATTERSON, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

173 A.D.3d 1737

102 N.Y.S.3d 853

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Rudy C. PATTERSON, Defendant–Appellant.

271

KA 15–00064

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

Entered: June 14, 2019

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is modified on the law by reversing that part convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and a new trial is granted on that count of the indictment.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of a controlled substance (CPCS) in the third degree ( Penal Law § 220.16[1] ) and CPCS in the fifth degree (§ 220.06[5] ). In June 2013, a plainclothes police officer observed a sedan make a right turn without a proper turn signal and relayed that information by radio to a uniformed police officer. The uniformed officer stopped the sedan and approached its driver, defendant. At that point, the uniformed officer detected an odor of alcohol and marihuana and observed that defendant had watery, bloodshot eyes. Defendant was thereafter frisked, and the officers recovered from his person a large rock of crack cocaine, several dime bags containing smaller amounts of crack cocaine, and $ 349 cash.

Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court (Piampiano, J.) properly refused to suppress physical evidence and statements. A police stop of a vehicle is permissible where a police officer has probable cause to believe that the driver of the vehicle has committed a traffic violation (see People v. Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d 341, 349, 741 N.Y.S.2d 147, 767 N.E.2d 638 [2001] ; People v. Robinson, 122 A.D.3d 1282, 1283, 996 N.Y.S.2d 433 [4th Dept. 2014] ). An officer who lacks personal knowledge sufficient to establish probable cause may rely on information communicated by a fellow officer, " ‘provided that the police as a whole were in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause’ " ( People v. Ramirez–Portoreal, 88 N.Y.2d 99, 113, 643 N.Y.S.2d 502, 666 N.E.2d 207 [1996] ; see also People v. Mobley, 120 A.D.3d 916, 918, 991 N.Y.S.2d 193 [4th Dept. 2014] ). At the suppression hearing, the uniformed officer testified that he received a radio communication from the plainclothes officer, who observed a sedan use an improper turn signal (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 ), and also received radio communications advising as to the sedan's location and direction of travel. Immediately after the uniformed officer received those communications, he spotted a sedan in that location and traveling in that direction. An audio recording of those communications was received in evidence and is consistent with the uniformed officer's testimony in that regard. The uniformed officer thus was justified in stopping the sedan because he had probable cause to believe that its driver had committed a traffic violation (see People v. Robinson, 134 A.D.3d 1538, 1539, 22 N.Y.S.3d 771 [4th Dept. 2015] ).

Defendant further contends that Supreme Court (Moran, J.), to which the matter was transferred prior to trial, abused its discretion in reassigning a certain attorney to serve as his defense counsel because the court had previously relieved that same attorney due to an apparent conflict of interest. We reject that contention. Inasmuch as the record establishes that the conflict had been resolved prior to the reassignment of defense counsel, we conclude that defendant failed to establish the existence of a genuine conflict between himself and counsel (see People v. Correa, 145 A.D.3d 1640, 1641, 44 N.Y.S.3d 834 [4th Dept. 2016] ; see generally People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233 [1990] ).

Defendant next contends that the court erred in denying his challenge for cause to a prospective juror. We reject that contention as well. Whenever a statement made by a prospective juror casts "serious doubt" on his or her ability to render an impartial verdict, the court must excuse that prospective juror for cause unless he or she provides an "unequivocal assurance" that he or she can set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence ( People v. Warrington, 28 N.Y.3d 1116, 1119–1120, 45 N.Y.S.3d 345, 68 N.E.3d 70 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Garcia, 148 A.D.3d 1559, 1559–1560, 51 N.Y.S.3d 281 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 980, 67 N.Y.S.3d 582, 89 N.E.3d 1262 [2017] ).

Here, during voir dire, defense counsel asked a panel of prospective jurors: "Does anybody here need to hear the defendant testify?" One of the prospective jurors (juror) gave an affirmative response. Defense counsel asked the juror a follow-up question: "Is that important to you that he testify or you would think maybe he's hiding something?" In response, the juror gave a response indicating that she would reach a verdict based upon the facts presented and the elements of the crime. Defense counsel then asked whether the juror would hold defendant's silence against him; the juror stated that she did not believe that she would. Defense counsel then repeated her initial question, i.e., whether the juror would need to hear defendant testify. The juror answered: "I would feel like I had more information if I heard from him than if I did not." Upon further questioning, the juror indicated that she would not need to hear defendant's testimony in order to reach a decision on a verdict. The juror added: "I wouldn't necessarily think he was hiding something." In summary, although the juror initially indicated that she would "need" to hear defendant's testimony, when defense counsel asked her further clarifying questions, the juror's statements indicated that she would not be influenced by defendant's silence and that she would be able to decide the case based upon the law and the facts. We thus conclude that the juror's statements did not "raise a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial" ( Warrington, 28 N.Y.3d at 1119, 45 N.Y.S.3d 345, 68 N.E.3d 70 [internal quotation marks omitted]; cf. People v. Hargis, 151 A.D.3d 1946, 1947, 57 N.Y.S.3d 850 [4th Dept. 2017] ).

We reject defendant's further contention that the court abused its discretion in allowing police testimony at trial with respect to the element of intent to sell. The officer testified that, in six years on the department's tactical unit, he had participated in thousands of drug arrests, including the arrest of defendant, and, in his experience, crack users typically carry a limited amount of crack. Although the officer had encountered crack users with a rock of crack, he had never encountered a crack user carrying a rock, several dime bags, and a large amount of cash. The court properly allowed the officer's testimony because it was limited to matters related to drug transactions that were not within the common knowledge or experience of the average juror, and thus the testimony did not invade the jury's fact-finding function (see People v. Hicks, 2 N.Y.3d 750, 751, 778 N.Y.S.2d 745, 811 N.E.2d 7 [2004] ; cf. People v. Hartzog, 15 A.D.3d 866, 866–867, 789 N.Y.S.2d 391 [4th Dept. 2005], lv denied 4 N.Y.3d 831, 796 N.Y.S.2d 586, 829 N.E.2d 679 [2005] ).

We also reject defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we conclude that there is a "valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences [that] could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the [factfinder] on the basis of the evidence at trial" ( People v. Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925, 926, 620 N.Y.S.2d 811, 644 N.E.2d 1367 [1994] ; see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), and thus that the evidence is legally sufficient with respect to both counts (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d at 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).

Defendant failed to preserve his contention that the prosecutor, in describing the testimony of the police witnesses as "untouchable," improperly vouched for their credibility because defendant did not object to the remark on that ground (see generally People v. Simmons, 133 A.D.3d 1227, 1228, 18 N.Y.S.3d 808 [4th Dept. 2015] ). Although defendant preserved his contention that the prosecutor's remark improperly shifted the burden of proof, we nevertheless conclude that the remark was isolated and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Walker, 117 A.D.3d 1441, 1442, 986 N.Y.S.2d 284 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 1044, 993 N.Y.S.2d 258, 17 N.E.3d 513 [2014] ). We further conclude that all of the remaining challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence (see People v. Easley, 124 A.D.3d 1284, 1285, 1 N.Y.S.3d 640 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1200, 16 N.Y.S.3d 523, 37 N.E.3d 1166 [2015] ).

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in refusing to submit CPCS in the seventh degree ( Penal Law § 220.03 ) to the jury as a lesser included offense of CPCS in the fifth degree. A party who seeks to have a lesser included offense submitted to the jury must satisfy a two-pronged test: "First, the crime must be a lesser included offense within the meaning of Criminal Procedure Law § 1.20 (37) ... Second, the party making the request for a charge-down ‘must then show that there is a reasonable view of the evidence in the particular case that would support a finding that [the defendant] committed the lesser included offense but not the greater’ " ( People v. Rivera, 23 N.Y.3d 112, 120, 989 N.Y.S.2d 446, 12...