People v. Thornton

• Decision Date: 16 July 1987
• Citation: 130 A.D.2d 78,517 N.Y.S.2d 807
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carl T. THORNTON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 807

517 N.Y.S.2d 807

130 A.D.2d 78

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carl T. THORNTON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

July 16, 1987.

William R. Shaw, Ithaca, for appellant.

Benjamin J. Bucko, Dist. Atty. (William A. Lange, Jr., of counsel), Ithaca, for respondent.

Before MAHONEY, P.J., and WEISS, YESAWICH, LEVINE and HARVEY, JJ.

LEVINE, Justice.

Defendant was indicted for the crimes of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of at least .10%, as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 ), and operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 ), and of the offense of operating a motor vehicle while his license was revoked, a violation (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 ). Following a jury trial, he was found guilty on all three counts and was sentenced to concurrent indeterminate terms of 1 1/3 to 4 years' imprisonment on the felony charges and to a conditional discharge on the violation.

Defendant's contention on appeal, that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he operated a motor vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2) and (3) and § 511 (2), is without merit. State Troopers Robert M. Lishansky and Patrick J. Smith testified that while on patrol in Tompkins County, they observed a vehicle facing north in a southbound lane of Route 366, parked with three wheels on the road. According to the troopers, defendant was seated behind the wheel of the vehicle, but moved to the center of the front seat immediately after the patrol car pulled up. Lishansky testified that when he exited the patrol car and approached the vehicle, the lights were on and the engine was running, but the engine was thereafter turned off and he then observed defendant pass something to the passenger in the front seat prior to moving to the middle of the seat. The keys to the vehicle were later found on the floor on the passenger side of the car. Smith followed Lishansky out of the patrol car and recalled that the motor of the other vehicle was off by the time he reached the rear of the vehicle. He did observe that the vehicle's lights were on.

In addition to the foregoing, there was testimony from the sole other occupant of the vehicle, Dennis Seaman. Seaman had initially stated at the scene that he had been driving the car but switched seats with defendant so that defendant could talk to three teenagers who were walking along the side of Route 366. However, he immediately recanted his story and at trial testified that defendant had driven the car to the point where it was stopped, pulled over to talk to the teenagers, and upon noticing the patrol car, turned the car's engine off, threw the keys towards the passenger seat and edged away from the wheel. From all of the foregoing, the jury could properly find beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that defendant had driven the car to the point at which it was stopped and thus operated it, and (2) that defendant, positioned at the wheel of the car while it was parked on Route 366 with the engine running and lights on, was using the mechanism of the vehicle for the purpose of putting it in motion if he had not been interrupted by the troopers. This is sufficient to establish operation of the vehicle within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2) and (3) (see, People v. Marriott, 37 A.D.2d 868, 325 N.Y.S.2d 177; Matter of Prudhomme v. Hults, 27 A.D.2d 234, 236-237, 278 N.Y.S.2d 67).

The foregoing evidence of defendant's operation of the vehicle was direct and not circumstantial, in that it consisted of Seaman's personal observations of defendant driving the car to the place where it was parked and Lishansky's similar observations of the vehicle and defendant's conduct thereafter. Therefore, contrary to defendant's contentions, the case is not governed by the circumstantial evidence standard of proof either for purposes of submitting it to the jury or appellate review (see, People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 380, 429 N.Y.S.2d 178, 406 N.E.2d 1071).

Defendant's alternative argument for reversal is that he was denied a fair trial because of the prosecution's failure to supply him with exculpatory evidence and information as required under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215. The Brady material defendant sought before trial was (1) all impeaching evidence with respect to Seaman, the other occupant of the car, such as his initial admission to the troopers that he was the driver, the results of sobriety tests which were administered to him and his prior criminal record, and (2) the names and addresses of the three teenagers he and Seaman encountered and spoke to when they stopped on Route 366. As to data sought by the defense to impeach Seaman's credibility as a witness, much of it was known by defendant at the inception of the case and the remainder was furnished by the prosecution as Rosario material immediately before the trial began. These materials were used effectively by the defense during the trial and there has been no showing whatsoever that any earlier disclosure would have affected the outcome of the trial (see, People v. Holmes, 117 A.D.2d 480, 483, 504 N.Y.S.2d 245, lv. denied 68...