People v. Scott

• Decision Date: 09 May 2002
• Citation: 294 A.D.2d 661,742 N.Y.S.2d 681
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>RASHAD SCOTT, Also Known as MACK, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

294 A.D.2d 661

742 N.Y.S.2d 681

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v.RASHAD SCOTT, Also Known as MACK, Appellant.

Spain, J.

Decided May 9, 2002.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

Spain, J.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of murder in the second degree (depraved indifference and felony murder) and numerous related crimes for his participation in the May 12, 1997 break-in of the home of Richard Vale in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County, during which Sheryl Toyloy, who resided with Vale, was killed. James Young, one of the three participants in these crimes, testified at trial pursuant to a cooperation agreement that he, defendant and Patrick Jeanty, who all knew one another and were involved in drug selling, participated in the plan to rob Vale's combination safe located in his basement.

Young testified that earlier in the day while Vale was at work, Jeanty had gone to Vale's residence to visit Toyloy, with whom Jeanty had a drug-related relationship, and deliberately left a first floor window open when he left. Later that day, the trio returned and initially defendant, the only one of the three who Toyloy did not know, wearing a mask and gloves, entered the home through the window and was surprised by Toyloy who was coming down the stairs from the second floor. Defendant subdued Toyloy, covered her head with a blanket and then opened the front door allowing Young and Jeanty, waiting outside, to enter. Upon entering, Young observed defendant kneeling on the back of Toyloy, who was face down and not moving, near the front door. Defendant told them that Toyloy had screamed and resisted, causing him to "put her to sleep." Jeanty and Young tied Toyloy's wrists and ankles and tied the blanket around her head and she was moved to a less visible area of the house. Toyloy was not again seen moving and, when Young later checked on her, he determined that she had no pulse and had died. A subsequent autopsy revealed that she had died of asphyxiation. Toyloy's two-year-old child was present in the home during the entire crime spree.

The trio then awaited Vale's return from work several hours later and, upon his entry into his home, they ambushed him, repeatedly beat him causing serious injuries, handcuffed him and extracted the combination to his safe. Unable to open it, they forced Vale to open it and stole its contents, consisting of cash and coins valued at approximately $800. They gagged and bound Vale and fled, dividing the proceeds. Vale was able to free himself, at which time he went to a neighbor's house for help and was then transported via ambulance for emergency medical treatment. Key aspects of Young's testimony were corroborated by, inter alia, various physical evidence, two of defendant's friends who testified that defendant told them of his involvement, and the testimony of defendant's girlfriend.

Upon his conviction, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate indeterminate prison term of 63 5/6 years to life. Jeanty's judgment of conviction after a separate trial for felony murder and related crimes was affirmed by this Court (People v Jeanty, 268 AD2d 675, lv denied 94 NY2d 949). Defendant now appeals, arguing that various evidentiary errors and the prosecutor's comments upon summation deprived him of a fair trial. Upon close inspection, we find that none of his claims has merit.

Among defendant's claims that evidentiary errors occurred which deprived him of a fair trial, he contends that County Court erred in admitting into evidence a photograph of Toyloy and her two-year-old daughter taken prior to these crimes. The photograph was later used by witnesses for identification purposes and was relevant, inter alia, to establish the relative age and appearance of the murder victim and her child, who was present in the house throughout the ordeal but was too young to testify. We perceive no abuse of discretion in this ruling, which was succeeded by multiple admonitions to the jury (see, People v Stevens, 76 NY2d 833, 835-836; cf., People v Dove, 233 AD2d 751, 754, lv denied 89 NY2d 1011). With regard to defendant's objection to the introduction into evidence of the authenticated Mohawk Ambulance Service Records, i.e., a report pertaining to the emergency care provided to Vale, the testimony of the paramedic who participated—along with his partner who had prepared the report—in the treatment of Vale near the crime scene established the requisite foundation for the admission of this report under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see, People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89; People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 578-580; People v Bailey, 252 AD2d 815, 815-816, lv denied 92 NY2d 922; see also, CPLR 4518 [a]; CPL 60.10). Testimony from the author of the report was not a prerequisite to its admission under this exception (see, People v Cratsley, supra at 88-91).

Likewise, County Court properly overruled defense counsel's general objection to the testimony of the emergency room physician who treated Vale immediately upon his arrival at the hospital. The physician testified to the history he obtained from Vale, including his account that he had been assaulted and robbed, and such testimony established that this history was patently germane to his treatment and diagnosing of Vale's life-threatening injuries (see, People v Thomas, 282 AD2d 827, 828, lv denied 96 NY2d 925; Scott v Mason, 155 AD2d 655, 657). Defense counsel expressly declined to object to the introduction of Vale's resulting hospital records subject to redaction and, in any event, they were similarly properly received (see, People v Cratsley, supra at 88-89).

We also find lacking in merit defendant's argument that County Court erred in permitting several expert witnesses to offer explanatory information regarding the results of forensic tests performed on evidence in this case, and regarding the absence of physical evidence linking defendant to this crime. Testimony from a city police evidence technician and a State Police forensic analyst established that, among the three participants, only the fingerprint of Jeanty was lifted from the house; they were permitted to explain some of the reasons why fingerprints may be absent from surfaces despite having been handled, although they were not permitted to state their statistical success in lifting prints from crime scenes. On cross-examination, defense counsel emphasized the absence of fingerprint or other physical evidence connecting defendant to the crime scene. The forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy of Toyloy and took scrapings from beneath her fingernails, which were not conclusive, testified—over defense counsel's objection premised upon the "form" of the question— why it was extremely uncommon to find blood or tissue from another...