People v. Reeves

• Decision Date: 19 February 2020
• Docket Number: 2015–04718,Ind. No. 7904/12
• Citation: 180 A.D.3d 936,116 N.Y.S.3d 569 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Robert REEVES, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

180 A.D.3d 936

116 N.Y.S.3d 569 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,

v.Robert REEVES, Appellant.

2015–04718

Ind. No. 7904/12

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

Argued—October 10, 2019

February 19, 2020

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Lisa Napoli of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Keith Dolan of counsel), for respondent.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deborah Dowling, J.), rendered May 27, 2015, convicting him of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 643–644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).

The defendant's contention that the admission of certain DNA evidence at trial violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause (see People v. John, 27 N.Y.3d 294, 309–315, 33 N.Y.S.3d 88, 52 N.E.3d 1114 ) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ), and we decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v. Degracia, 173 A.D.3d 1199, 1200, 101 N.Y.S.3d 628 ; People v. Davis, 171 A.D.3d 1209, 1209, 96 N.Y.S.3d 886 ).

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the defendant's request for a missing witness charge, as the People established that the uncalled civilian witness was unavailable to testify (see People v. Gonzalez , 68 N.Y.2d 424, 428, 509 N.Y.S.2d 796, 502 N.E.2d 583 ; People v. Lopez , 168 A.D.3d 418, 419, 90 N.Y.S.3d 170 ; People v. Binyon , 48 A.D.3d 473, 473, 849 N.Y.S.2d 800 ). In addition, the defendant's contention in his pro se supplemental brief that he was entitled to a missing witness charge with respect to an uncalled assistant district attorney is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ), and, in any event, is without merit (see People v. Gonzalez , 68 N.Y.2d at 427–428, 509 N.Y.S.2d 796, 502 N.E.2d 583 ; People v. Piedra , 87 A.D.3d 706, 706, 928 N.Y.S.2d 752 ).

The defendant's contentions in his main brief and his pro se supplemental brief that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation were improper are, for the most part, unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Mena , 172 A.D.3d 1235, 1236, 98 N.Y.S.3d 881 ; People v. Beaupre , 170 A.D.3d 1031, 1033, 96 N.Y.S.3d 276 ; People v. Anka , 154 A.D.3d 870, 872, 63 N.Y.S.3d 74 ).

In any event, most of the challenged summation remarks were within the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, a fair response to statements made by defense counsel, or fair comment on the evidence and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v. Mena , 172 A.D.3d at 1236, 98 N.Y.S.3d 881 ; People v. Azor , 172 A.D.3d 1087, 1087, 98 N.Y.S.3d 484 ). To the extent that some of the challenged remarks were improper, they were not so flagrant or pervasive as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Coleman , 148 A.D.3d 717, 718, 48 N.Y.S.3d 478 ; People v. Almonte , 23 A.D.3d 392, 394, 806 N.Y.S.2d 95 ).

The defendant's contention in his pro se supplemental brief that the prosecutor violated the disclosure requirements of People v. Rosario (9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881 ) and Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 ) is without merit. Although a witness testified that the uncalled assistant district attorney had taken notes during an interview, the prosecutor expressly represented that neither he nor his colleague had done so. The prosecutor's representation "sufficed to resolve the issue," and the Supreme Court was entitled to rely on that representation ( People v. Cole , 196 A.D.2d 634, 636, 601 N.Y.S.2d 352 ; see People v. Phillip , 139 A.D.3d 881, 881–882, 31 N.Y.S.3d 184 ; People v. Rodriguez , 181 A.D.2d 841, 841–842, 581 N.Y.S.2d 396 ). To the extent the defendant argues that the court should have held a hearing or conducted an in camera review of the prosecution's file before making the threshold factual determination of whether any undisclosed Brady or Rosario information existed in the first place (see People v. Dockery , 278 A.D.2d 427, 427–428, 717 N.Y.S.2d 657 ), this argument is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Brown , 286 A.D.2d 340, 340, 728 N.Y.S.2d 685 ).

The defendant waived his contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that he was denied the right to testify before the grand jury by failing to move to dismiss the indictment within five days after his arraignment thereon (see CPL190.50[5][c]; People v. McTerrell , 174 A.D.3d 648, 649, 101 N.Y.S.3d 868 ).

The defendant's contention in his pro se supplemental brief that he was deprived of a fair trial based on several additional instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is not reviewable on direct appeal since the record contains insufficient evidence for this Court to review his claim (see CPL 440.10[2][b] ; People v. DeFelice , 164 A.D.3d 697, 697, 82 N.Y.S.3d 90 ; People v. Dixon , 138 A.D.3d 1016, 1017, 29 N.Y.S.3d 554 ; People v. English , 119 A.D.3d 706, 706, 988 N.Y.S.2d 697 ). "The defendant's claim in this regard may properly be reviewed only in the context of a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10, which is designed for the purpose of developing matter dehors the record" ( People v....