People v. Seabrooks

• Decision Date: 22 March 2011
• Citation: 918 N.Y.S.2d 797,82 A.D.3d 1130
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Karim SEABROOKS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

918 N.Y.S.2d 797

82 A.D.3d 1130

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Karim SEABROOKS, appellant.

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

March 22, 2011.

Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for appellant.

Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel; Selha R. Abed on the brief), for respondent.

DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, ARIEL E. BELEN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Alfieri, J.), rendered August 17, 2009, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, a review of the totality of the circumstances ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 413, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828; People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 38, 396 N.Y.S.2d 625, 364 N.E.2d 1318) demonstrates that his written statement to the police, which was given after he was informed of, and waived, his Miranda rights ( see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694), was voluntarily made ( see CPL 60.45[1]; People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d at 414, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053; People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials was properly denied. The defendant improperly relies on trial testimony in support of his contention that the statement was involuntarily made ( see People v. Castellanos, 65 A.D.3d 555, 556, 884 N.Y.S.2d 126; People v. O'Neil, 62 A.D.3d 727, 880 N.Y.S.2d 90; People v. Kocowicz, 281 A.D.2d 643, 722 N.Y.S.2d 256; People v. Andujar, 267 A.D.2d 467, 700 N.Y.S.2d 480).

We agree with the defendant that the County Court improperly allowed the prosecutor to cross-examine him about facts underlying prior convictions that were similar to the facts underlying the present charge. In its original Sandoval ruling ( see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413), the County Court ruled that the People could not elicit the facts underlying the prior convictions unless the defendant "opened the door." "[W]hen the defendant or a witness for the defense testifies to facts that are in conflict with the precluded evidence ... the defense 'opens the door' on the issue in question, and the witness is properly subject to impeachment by the prosecution's use of the otherwise precluded evidence" ( People v. Fardan, 82 N.Y.2d 638, 646, 607 N.Y.S.2d 220, 628 N.E.2d 41; see People v. Cooper, 92 N.Y.2d 968, 969, 683 N.Y.S.2d 757, 706 N.E.2d 745; People v. Rodriguez, 85 N.Y.2d 586, 591, 627 N.Y.S.2d 292, 650 N.E.2d 1293). Contrary to the County Court's determination, the defendant did not testify to facts in conflict with the precluded evidence, and therefore did not "open the door" to the otherwise precluded evidence. Also contrary to the County Court's conclusion, the evidence was not admissible under the "intent" exception to the Molineux rule ( see People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286), as thedefendant's intent could easily be inferred by the act itself ( see People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808; People v. Katz, 209 N.Y. 311, 327-328, 103 N.E. 305). However, the evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming and there was no significant probability that the error contributed to the defendant's conviction ( see People v. Arafet, 13 N.Y.3d 460, 466-467, 892 N.Y.S.2d 812, 920 N.E.2d 919; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the complaining witness's improper conduct and comments while on the witness stand is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. At the defendant's request, the trial court admonished the witness to not make any gestures or faces and to otherwise conduct herself appropriately. In addition, the County Court issued a curative instruction to which the defendant did not object further or take exception. The curative instruction, therefore, must be deemed to have corrected any errors to the defendant's satisfaction ( see People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943, 944, 620 N.Y.S.2d 814, 644 N.E.2d 1370; People v. Williams, 46 N.Y.2d 1070, 1071, 416 N.Y.S.2d 792, 390 N.E.2d 299; People v. Ketteles, 62 A.D.3d 902, 905, 879 N.Y.S.2d 208; People v. Smith, 294 A.D.2d 454, 741 N.Y.S.2d 744).

Contrary...