People v. Walton

• Decision Date: 30 January 2019
• Docket Number: 2014–04612,Ind. No. 2459/12
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Samuel WALTON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

168 A.D.3d 1103
92 N.Y.S.3d 390

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Samuel WALTON, Appellant.

2014–04612
Ind. No. 2459/12

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

Argued - May 22, 2018
January 30, 2019

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Denise A Corsi´ of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Seth M. Lieberman of counsel), for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

168 A.D.3d 1103

ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in connection with the shooting death of a man on the night of July 4, 2009. The victim was shot and killed by a man later identified as the defendant after the victim had engaged in a verbal altercation with the shooter and a woman who was with the shooter. The victim's brother, who had been walking with the victim and two other individuals on the night of the shooting, identified the defendant as the shooter and also identified the defendant's girlfriend as the woman who was with the defendant

168 A.D.3d 1104

at the time of the shooting. During the investigation of the murder, which lasted almost three years before the defendant was arrested, another witness, the defendant's cousin, provided oral and written statements to the police that, inter alia, he

92 N.Y.S.3d 393

saw the defendant with a gun shortly after the shooting and that the defendant told him he had shot someone.

The evidence at trial included, inter alia, the testimony of the victim's brother and his identification of the defendant and the woman who was with the defendant at the shooting. The defendant's cousin refused to testify at trial and the People then sought to admit the cousin's prior statements to the police. The People contended, among other things, that the defendant had threatened and coerced his cousin into refusing to testify. The Supreme Court then held a Sirois hearing (see People v. Sirois, 92 A.D.2d 618, 459 N.Y.S.2d 813 ; Matter of Holtzman v. Hellenbrand, 92 A.D.2d 405, 415, 460 N.Y.S.2d 591 ) on the issue.

During the hearing, the People sought to establish that the cousin was unavailable due to the actions of the defendant. The People presented phone records evidencing the dates and the content of certain calls made by the cousin to other individuals while the cousin was incarcerated at Riker's Island, and calls by the defendant to other individuals believed to be family members. The People contended these calls demonstrated that the defendant and other family members secured the cousin's agreement not to testify against the defendant. The People also represented to the Supreme Court that they planned to offer the testimony of an inmate who knew the defendant and his family, who claimed, among other things, that the defendant had told him that the defendant had "put the wolves out" on the cousin to keep him from testifying, and that the defendant was confident that he would beat the charges as a result. According to the People, the inmate subsequently refused to testify at the hearing out of fear. An Assistant District Attorney testified at the hearing as to the substance of her interview of the inmate, which had taken place the day before.

At the hearing, the People argued that the recorded telephone calls showed that the cousin's familial relationship with the defendant and that the threats made to the cousin resulted in him refusing to cooperate in the prosecution of the defendant. The Supreme Court held that the People established by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's misconduct was the cause of the cousin's refusal to testify. As a result, the cousin's prior written statement was read to the jury, and a recording of the cousin's oral statement, which was substantially

168 A.D.3d 1105

similar to the written statement, was played in open court. The defendant was thereafter convicted of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment. The defendant appeals.

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment. Under the facts of this case, the defendant's contentions that he was denied his right to a speedy trial and his due process right to prompt prosecution are without merit. A defendant's right to a speedy trial is guaranteed both by the United States Constitution (see U.S. Const 6th, 14th Amends; Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 223, 87 S.Ct. 988, 18 L.Ed.2d 1 ), and by statute (see CPL 30.20[1] ; Civil Rights Law § 12 ). Although an unjustified delay in prosecution will deprive a defendant of the State constitutional right to due process (see N.Y. Const, art I, § 6 ; People v. Decker, 13 N.Y.3d 12, 14, 884 N.Y.S.2d 662, 912 N.E.2d 1041 ; People v. Staley, 41 N.Y.2d 789, 791, 396 N.Y.S.2d 339, 364 N.E.2d 1111 ), "a determination made in good faith to delay prosecution for sufficient reasons will not deprive defendant of due process

92 N.Y.S.3d 394

...