People v. Steen

• Citation: 967 N.Y.S.2d 572,107 A.D.3d 1608,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04531
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James H. STEEN, Defendant–Appellant.
• Decision Date: 14 June 2013
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

107 A.D.3d 1608
967 N.Y.S.2d 572
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04531

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
James H. STEEN, Defendant–Appellant.

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

June 14, 2013.

[967 N.Y.S.2d 573]

Amy L. Hallenbeck, Johnstown, for Defendant–Appellant.

Gregory S. Oakes, District Attorney, Oswego, for Respondent.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

[107 A.D.3d 1608]Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.27[1][a] [viii] ) and two counts of murder in the second degree (§ 125.25[3] [felony murder] ). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court's charge with respect to the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance was erroneous ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Orta, 12 A.D.3d 1147, 1148, 784 N.Y.S.2d 812,lv. denied4 N.Y.3d 801, 795 N.Y.S.2d 176, 828 N.E.2d 92), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( seeCPL 470.15[6][a] ). We reject defendant's contention that the alleged error in the charge constitutes a mode of proceedings error that does not require preservation ( see

[967 N.Y.S.2d 574]

People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467, 470–472, 429 N.Y.S.2d 584, 407 N.E.2d 430).

Contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude that the jury's rejection of the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Reynart, 71 A.D.3d 1057, 1057–1058, 900 N.Y.S.2d 65,lv. denied14 N.Y.3d 891, 903 N.Y.S.2d 780, 929 N.E.2d 1015;People v. Butera, 23 A.D.3d 1066, 1067, 803 N.Y.S.2d 856,lv. denied6 N.Y.3d 774, 811 N.Y.S.2d 341, 844 N.E.2d 796,reconsideration denied6 N.Y.3d 832, 814 N.Y.S.2d 80, 847 N.E.2d 377). “[T]he jury was entitled to consider the conduct of defendant before and after the homicide[s] and to reject his explanation for his conduct” ( People v. Domblewski, 238 A.D.2d 916, 916, 661 N.Y.S.2d 128,lv. denied90 N.Y.2d 904, 663 N.Y.S.2d 516, 686 N.E.2d 228). Additionally, although[107 A.D.3d 1609]“an acquittal would not have been unreasonable” on the charge of murder in the first degree in light of defendant's testimony that he did not intend to shoot the second victim ( People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we conclude that the weight of the credible evidence nevertheless supports the...