People v. Sunset Bay

• Decision Date: 18 March 1986
• Citation: 501 N.Y.S.2d 19,492 N.E.2d 127,67 N.Y.2d 787
• Parties: , 492 N.E.2d 127 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. SUNSET BAY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 19

501 N.Y.S.2d 19

67 N.Y.2d 787, 492 N.E.2d 127

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. SUNSET BAY, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 18, 1986.

Mary R. Falk and Philip L. Weinstein, New York City, for appellant.

Mario Merola, Dist. Atty. (Peter D. Coddington and Steven R. Kartagener, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 111 A.D.2d 598, 489 N.Y.S.2d 438, should be affirmed.

Defendant has been convicted of murder in the second degree in connection with the death of Roberta Fort. ^* His main contentions are that the evidence adduced at trial, which was entirely circumstantial, was insufficient to establish his guilt, and that the destruction of a pubic hair found near the victim's body prior to trial deprived him of a fair trial.

The evidence at trial established that the defendant lived in the apartment building in which the victim was found murdered, that the defendant was in the habit of walking barefoot on the building's roof, that a pubic hair found near the victim's body was microscopically indistinguishable in 22 particulars from samples taken from the defendant, that the defendant's footprint measures in 32 particulars to within five millimeters of a footprint found in undisturbed plaster powder which covered the apartment where the body was discovered, that the defendant left his fingerprint on the right roof door just four feet from where running, bare footprints disappeared on their way to the door, that the defendant knew that the victim's hands had been tied with her bra, a fact that was not publicly known and which the prosecution claimed could be learned only by approaching the body and tilting it, and that the defendant knew that stains outside his doorway were human blood when tests showed that the blood was the victim's type rather than the defendant's.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference, as we must (see, e.g., People v. Castillo, 47 N.Y.2d 270, 277, 417 N.Y.S.2d 915, 391 N.E.2d 997; People v. Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29, 32, 364 N.Y.S.2d 855, 324 N.E.2d 334), we conclude that the jury's verdict was sufficiently supported (see, People v. Levine, 65 N.Y.2d 845, 493 N.Y.S.2d 290, 482 N.E.2d 1206; People v. Giuliano, 65 N.Y.2d 766, 492 N.Y.S.2d 939, 482 N.E.2d 557; People v. Marin, 65 N.Y.2d 741, 492 N.Y.S.2d 16, 481 N.E.2d 556).

We also reject defendant's claim that the F.B.I.'s destruction of the pubic hair found near the victim's body deprived him of a fair trial. The pubic hair was available for examination prior to the defendant's entry of his initial guilty plea, but was destroyed by the F.B.I. sometime thereafter in the good-faith belief that it was no longer necessary to preserve it as evidence.

After a hearing, Criminal Term found, as a fact, that, at the time defendant had originally pleaded guilty,...