People v. Pilgrim

• Decision Date: 06 December 2012
• Citation: 954 N.Y.S.2d 536,101 A.D.3d 435,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08410
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald PILGRIM, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

101 A.D.3d 435

954 N.Y.S.2d 536

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08410

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Ronald PILGRIM, Defendant–Appellant.

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

Dec. 6, 2012.

Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Joseph M. Nursey of counsel), for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Noah J. Chamoy of counsel), for respondent.

GONZALEZ, P.J., SWEENY, RICHTER, ROMÁN, CLARK, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John W. Carter, J.), rendered May 20, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 22 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. The eyewitness testimony of defendant's young son was extensively corroborated.

The court properly exercised its discretion in conducting certain proceedings on an ex parte, in camera basis ( seeCPL 240.90[3]; People v. Contreras, 12 N.Y.3d 268, 273, 879 N.Y.S.2d 369, 907 N.E.2d 282 [2009] ). The principal result of these proceedings was the issuance of protective orders ( seeCPL 240.50) that delayed disclosure of the People's intention to call defendant's son as a witness. The delay was appropriate under the circumstances of the case, and, in any event, disclosure was made before the juncture set forth in CPL 240.45 for disclosure of witness statements. Defendant was not prejudiced by the ex parte nature of the proceedings. He was not deprived of any opportunity to impeach any witness concerning material matters revealed ex parte, including issues regarding his son's mental condition. When it was revealed that defendant's son had been seeing a therapist, defense counsel recognized that she could subpoena his therapy records, but she elected not to do so.

Defendant did not preserve his constitutional claims concerning the ex parte proceedings, or any of his constitutional and nonconstitutional claims regarding medical evidence, the prosecutor's summation, or the court's acceptance of the jury's verdict. We reject defendant's argument that the latter claim involved a mode of proceedings error exempt from preservation requirements ( see People v. Williams, 16 N.Y.3d 480, 922 N.Y.S.2d 239, 947 N.E.2d 130 [2011];see also People v. Rodriguez...