People v. Strauss

• Decision Date: 03 February 2017
• Citation: 147 A.D.3d 1426,46 N.Y.S.3d 376,2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00873
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Zachary STRAUSS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

147 A.D.3d 1426

46 N.Y.S.3d 376

2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00873

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Zachary STRAUSS, Defendant–Appellant.

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

Feb. 3, 2017.

Peter J. Digiorgio, Jr., Utica, for Defendant–Appellant.

Scott D. McNamara, District Attorney, Utica (Steven G. Cox of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35[1] ), defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence on the issue of forcible compulsion. Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Black, 137 A.D.3d 1679, 1680, 27 N.Y.S.3d 776, lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 1128, 39 N.Y.S.3d 110, 61 N.E.3d 509 ; see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).

Defendant's contention that the People improperly failed to seek an advance ruling concerning the admissibility of evidence of defendant's involvement in a drug transaction and threats to commit suicide is not preserved for our review (see People v. Thomas, 226 A.D.2d 1071, 1071–1072, 642 N.Y.S.2d 749, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 995, 649 N.Y.S.2d 402, 672 N.E.2d 628 ; People v. Clark, 203 A.D.2d 935, 936, 611 N.Y.S.2d 387, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 965, 616 N.Y.S.2d 18, 639 N.E.2d 758 ). Likewise, defendant's challenge to the admissibility of an unredacted videotape of his interview with the police is not preserved for our review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ).

Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the verdict is inconsistent insofar as the jury found defendant guilty of rape in the first degree but not guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree. Defendant failed to object to the verdict before the jurors were discharged (see People v. Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985, 987, 499 N.Y.S.2d 378, 489 N.E.2d 1280 ; People v. Brooks, 139 A.D.3d 1391, 1392, 31 N.Y.S.3d 372 ). In any event, viewing the elements of those two crimes as charged to the jury without regard to the accuracy of those instructions (see People v. DeLee, 24 N.Y.3d 603, 608, 2 N.Y.S.3d 382, 26 N.E.3d 210 ; People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 7–8, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617, rearg. denied 55 N.Y.2d 1039, 449 N.Y.S.2d 1030, 434 N.E.2d 1081 ), we conclude that there is no inconsistency in the verdict because an acquittal on the charge of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree is not "conclusive as to a necessary element" of rape in the first degree (Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d at 7, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617 ; see generally People v. Barfield, 138 A.D.2d 497, 497, 525 N.Y.S.2d 892, lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 1023, 530 N.Y.S.2d 558, 526 N.E.2d 50 ).

Defendant did not preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation (see People v. Symonds, 140 A.D.3d 1685, 1685, 33 N.Y.S.3d 632, lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 937, 40 N.Y.S.3d 365, 63 N.E.3d 85 ). In any event, we conclude that the prosecutor's remarks constituted fair comment upon the evidence or fair response to the summation of defense counsel (see People v. Jackson, 141 A.D.3d 1095, 1096, 35 N.Y.S.3d 610 ; see also People v. Lyon, 77 A.D.3d 1338, 1339, 908 N.Y.S.2d 291, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 954, 917 N.Y.S.2d 113, 942 N.E.2d 324 ).

Finally, we reject defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. "There can be no denial of effective...