People v. Tomlin

• Decision Date: 02 July 2015
• Docket Number: 693 KA 12-01693
• Citation: 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05802,12 N.Y.S.3d 740,130 A.D.3d 1455
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles W. TOMLIN, III, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

130 A.D.3d 1455

12 N.Y.S.3d 740

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05802

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent

v.Charles W. TOMLIN, III, Defendant–Appellant.

693 KA 12-01693

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

July 2, 2015.

Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Kristen McDermott of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Romana A. Lavalas of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CARNI, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, and WHALEN, JJ.

OpinionMEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192[3] ; 1193[1][c][i] ), and unlawful possession of marihuana (Penal Law § 221.05 ). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the alleged legal insufficiency of the evidence with respect to the element of intoxication because he failed to move for a trial order of dismissal on that ground (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that he operated the motor vehicle at the time and place charged in the indictment (see People v. Blake, 5 N.Y.2d 118, 119–120, 180 N.Y.S.2d 775, 154 N.E.2d 818 ). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime and the violation 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 generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).

We reject defendant's contention that County Court abused its discretion in denying as untimely his request for a missing witness charge with respect to one of the police officers at the scene of defendant's arrest. “The request was not made until both parties had rested, rather than at the close of the People's proof, when defendant became ‘aware that the witness would not testify’ ” (People v. Williams, 94 A.D.3d 1555, 1556, 943 N.Y.S.2d 714 ). In any event, we note that the witness was no longer a police officer, and was incarcerated after having been prosecuted by the same District Attorney's office. Thus, it cannot be said that the witness was “favorably disposed” to the People and was under their control (People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 429, 509 N.Y.S.2d 796, 502 N.E.2d 583 ).

Defendant further contends that the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to elicit testimony from a police officer regarding defendant's failure to respond to an unspecified inquiry made to him while in the holding cell after his arrest, because such testimony was inconsistent with the court's pretrial suppression ruling. Contrary to defendant's contention, the testimony made no reference to defendant's refusal to submit to a breath test, which was the subject of the pretrial suppression ruling. The testimony concerning defendant's failure to respond to an unspecified inquiry was properly admitted because it was relevant to establishing defendant's physical condition, demeanor and general responsiveness to questioning (see People v. McRobbie, 97 A.D.3d 970, 971–972, 949 N.Y.S.2d 249, lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 934, 957 N.Y.S.2d 693, 981 N.E.2d 290 ). By failing to object during the prosecutor's summation, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the prosecutor made an improper reference to defendant's breath test refusal during summation and, in any event, he was not thereby denied a fair trial (see People v. Johnston, 43 A.D.3d 1273, 1274–1275, 842 N.Y.S.2d 837, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 1007, 850 N.Y.S.2d 395, 880 N.E.2d 881 ). Defendant further contends that the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to play portions of the booking video for the jury because the booking video was not included in the People's CPL 710.30 notice. We reject that contention, inasmuch as the portions of the booking video played for the jury showed defendant's physical condition, and they contained questions and answers about defendant's pedigree information as well as spontaneous statements by defendant not in response to any questions or interrogation (see People v. Higgins, 124 A.D.3d 929, 932–933, 1 N.Y.S.3d 424 ).

We reject defendant's further...