Opinion
75 KA 18-00150
03-24-2023
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Patrick D. BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
ERIK TEIFKE, ACTING PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (BRIDGET L. FIELD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (MARTIN P. MCCARTHY, II, OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
ERIK TEIFKE, ACTING PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (BRIDGET L. FIELD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (MARTIN P. MCCARTHY, II, OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND OGDEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts of murder in the second degree ( Penal Law § 125.25 [1] ), arising from an incident in which defendant's estranged wife and one of his daughters were stabbed to death. We affirm.
Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that County Court properly refused to suppress tangible evidence and statements he made to the police (see generally People v. De Bour , 40 N.Y.2d 210, 222-223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562 [1976] ; People v. Yukl , 25 N.Y.2d 585, 589, 307 N.Y.S.2d 857, 256 N.E.2d 172 [1969], rearg denied 26 N.Y.2d 845, 309 N.Y.S.2d 593, 258 N.E.2d 90 [1970], cert denied 400 U.S. 851, 91 S.Ct. 78, 27 L.Ed.2d 89 [1970] ; People v. Clark , 139 A.D.3d 1368, 1368-1370, 31 N.Y.S.3d 357 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 928, 40 N.Y.S.3d 356, 63 N.E.3d 76 [2016] ).
Defendant further contends that the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial when a police officer testified, in violation of the court's pretrial ruling, that defendant had told him that he had recently been in prison. "[T]he decision to grant or deny a motion for a mistrial is within the trial court's discretion" ( People v. Ortiz , 54 N.Y.2d 288, 292, 445 N.Y.S.2d 116, 429 N.E.2d 794 [1981] ). Here, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial and instead sustaining defendant's objection to the improper testimony, striking it from the record, and "providing the jury with a curative instruction directing them to disregard the improper testimony, which ‘the jury is presumed to have followed’ " ( People v. Urrutia , 181 A.D.3d 1338, 1338-1339, 121 N.Y.S.3d 767 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1054, 140 N.Y.S.3d 872, 164 N.E.3d 959 [2021] ; see People v. McKay , 197 A.D.3d 992, 992, 153 N.Y.S.3d 347 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1060, 154 N.Y.S.3d 639, 176 N.E.3d 675 [2021] ).
We also reject defendant's contention that the court abused its discretion in admitting, over his objection, allegedly inflammatory photographs of the two deceased victims, including crime scene and autopsy photographs. "The general rule is that photographs of the deceased are admissible [where, as here,] they tend to prove or disprove a disputed or material issue, to illustrate or elucidate other relevant evidence, or to corroborate or disprove some other evidence offered or to be offered" ( People v. Pobliner , 32 N.Y.2d 356, 369, 345 N.Y.S.2d 482, 298 N.E.2d 637 [1973], rearg denied 33 N.Y.2d 657, 348 N.Y.S.2d 1030, 303 N.E.2d 710 [1973], cert denied 416 U.S. 905, 94 S.Ct. 1609, 40 L.Ed.2d 110 [1974] ; see People v. Wood , 79 N.Y.2d 958, 960, 582 N.Y.S.2d 992, 591 N.E.2d 1178 [1992] ; People v. Fedora , 186 A.D.2d 982, 983, 588 N.Y.S.2d 446 [4th Dept. 1992], lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 762, 594 N.Y.S.2d 724, 610 N.E.2d 397 [1992] ). "Photographic evidence should be excluded only if its sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant" ( Pobliner , 32 N.Y.2d at 370, 345 N.Y.S.2d 482, 298 N.E.2d 637 ), and that is not the case here. The photographs "were probative of the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the victim[s] and were thus admissible to establish that defendant intentionally killed the victim[s]" ( People v. Lynch , 60 A.D.3d 1479, 1481, 875 N.Y.S.2d 730 [4th Dept. 2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 926, 884 N.Y.S.2d 708, 912 N.E.2d 1089 [2009] ; see People v. Morris , 138 A.D.3d 1408, 1409, 30 N.Y.S.3d 424 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1136, 39 N.Y.S.3d 118, 61 N.E.3d 517 [2016] ) and to elucidate and corroborate the testimony of the Medical Examiner concerning the victims’ injuries and causes of death (see People v. Stevens , 76 N.Y.2d 833, 836, 560 N.Y.S.2d 119, 559 N.E.2d 1278 [1990] ; People v. Spencer , 181 A.D.3d 1257, 1261, 120 N.Y.S.3d 536 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1029, 126 N.Y.S.3d 23, 149 N.E.3d 861 [2020] ; People v. Hayes , 71 A.D.3d 1477, 1477-1478, 897 N.Y.S.2d 370 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 751, 906 N.Y.S.2d 823, 933 N.E.2d 222 [2010] ). In addition, the photographs illustrating the chaotic, blood-spattered crime scene, when coupled with the evidence that defendant cut his hand, elucidated other relevant evidence that defendant's blood was found at the crime scene on the driver's license of one of the victims (see generally Pobliner , 32 N.Y.2d at 369, 345 N.Y.S.2d 482, 298 N.E.2d 637 ; People v. Giles , 20 A.D.3d 863, 864, 798 N.Y.S.2d 635 [4th Dept. 2005], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 806, 803 N.Y.S.2d 35, 836 N.E.2d 1158 [2005] ).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions concerning the court's evidentiary rulings and we conclude that they lack merit.
Defendant concedes that his contention that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation is not preserved for our review inasmuch as no objection was made to the allegedly improper remarks (see CPL 470.05 [2] ; People v. Sanford , 148 A.D.3d 1580, 1583, 51 N.Y.S.3d 728 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1133, 64 N.Y.S.3d 683, 86 N.E.3d 575 [2017] ), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a] ; Sanford , 148 A.D.3d at 1583, 51 N.Y.S.3d 728 ).
We reject defendant's contentions that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes , 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 [1983] ), we conclude that it is legally sufficient to support the conviction (see generally People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). Specifically, we conclude that defendant's commission of the crimes was " ‘established by a compelling chain of circumstantial evidence that had no reasonable explanation except that defendant was ... the perpetrator’ " ( People v. Daniels , 125 A.D.3d 1432, 1433, 3 N.Y.S.3d 543 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1071, 12 N.Y.S.3d 622, 34 N.E.3d 373 [2015], reconsideration denied 26 N.Y.3d 928, 17 N.Y.S.3d 90, 38 N.E.3d 836 [2015] ; see generally People v. Geroyianis , 96 A.D.3d 1641, 1642-1643, 946 N.Y.S.2d 803 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 996, 951 N.Y.S.2d 472, 975 N.E.2d 918 [2012], reconsideration denied 19 N.Y.3d 1102, 955 N.Y.S.2d 557, 979 N.E.2d 818 [2012] ). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes 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 [2007] ), we also reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.