People v. Polk

• Decision Date: 19 June 2014
• Citation: 118 A.D.3d 564,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04561,988 N.Y.S.2d 172
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Quinndale POLK, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

118 A.D.3d 564
988 N.Y.S.2d 172
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04561

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Quinndale POLK, Defendant–Appellant.

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

June 19, 2014.

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

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sylvia Wertheimer of counsel), for respondent.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., FRIEDMAN, RENWICK, DeGRASSE, GISCHE, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered December 9, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of four counts of murder in the second degree and two counts of kidnapping in the first degree, and sentencing

[988 N.Y.S.2d 173]

him to an aggregate term of 50 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

This prosecution stems from the robbery, kidnapping and murder of Juan Martin Del Campo and Gabriel Chantes Rosales (Chantes). The evidence at trial was subject to little dispute and consisted primarily of defendant's written and videotaped confession. On the morning of May 16, 2001, the bodies of Del Campo and Chantes were found in Riverside Park near West 152nd Street in Manhattan. Each victim had been shot in the head. Del Campo and Chantes had last been seen leaving the restaurant where they worked in Little Falls, New Jersey on May 15, 2001 at about 10:25 p.m. According to defendant's confession, the victims were confronted in the restaurant's parking lot by defendant and Lamar Lee, his accomplice, as they were standing alongside of Del Campo's Jeep. At gunpoint, defendant and Lee stole $60 and a watch from Del Campo and $10 from Chantes. The victims were forced into the Jeep from which defendant removed a cell phone. Defendant and Lee then forcibly drove Del Campo and Chantes from the parking lot, then across the George Washington Bridge to Riverside Park where Lee fatally shot them. After killing the victims, defendant and Lee drove back to New Jersey in the Jeep. Defendant also admitted to using the cell phone following the murders.

With respect to each victim, the jury convicted defendant of one count of kidnapping as well as two felony murder counts that were predicated on kidnapping and robbery, respectively. The jury, however, found that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction with respect to the two robbery counts set forth in the indictment.

The trial court instructed the jury that the prosecution was required to establish the State's territorial jurisdiction by a preponderance of evidence. As the People concede, the charge was erroneous in this regard. ¹ On the contrary, the People were required to establish the State's territorial jurisdiction by proof beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v. McLaughlin, 80 N.Y.2d at 470, 591 N.Y.S.2d 966, 606 N.E.2d 1357). Moreover, territorial jurisdiction is not waivable ( id. at 471, 591 N.Y.S.2d 966, 606 N.E.2d 1357). Our analysis, however, does not end with a citation to McLaughlin. The issue before us involves the trial court's charge on jurisdiction as opposed to jurisdiction itself. Although a challenge to a court's territorial jurisdiction cannot be waived, a claim of error in a court's instructions on the subject requires preservation by way of an appropriate objection at the court of first instance. Nonetheless, the requirement of preservation is subject to an exception that exists for “mode of proceedings” errors that consist of the most fundamental flaws implicating jurisdictional matters or constitutional rights that go to the very heart of the criminal justice process ( see People v. Hanley, 20 N.Y.3d 601, 604–605, 964 N.Y.S.2d 491, 987 N.E.2d 268 [2013] ). Defendant asserts that the mode of proceedings exception applies here.

People v. Carvajal, 6 N.Y.3d 305, 812 N.Y.S.2d 395, 845 N.E.2d 1225 (2005), a case involving an interstate drug operation, is illustrative. In Carvajal, the Court noted that the defendant had “relinquished his opportunity to hold the People to their burden of proof, and did not preserve his current contention that the jury should

[988 N.Y.S.2d 174]

have decided whether the People proved jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt” ( id. at 311–312, 812 N.Y.S.2d 395, 845 N.E.2d 1225). Citing People v. Greenberg, 89 N.Y.2d 553, 656 N.Y.S.2d 192, 678 N.E.2d 878 (1997), the Carvajal Court...