Opinion
1129 KA 19-00446
01-28-2022
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Cyrell HAYGOOD, Defendant-Appellant.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND BANNISTER, 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 murder in the second degree ( Penal Law § 125.25 [1] ) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [3]). We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court violated his right to be present at a material stage of trial when it excluded him, but not his attorney, from portions of the Molineux hearing, specifically, in-chambers discussions concerning an affidavit in which a witness alleged that he had knowledge of defendant's gang affiliation. The identity of the witness was shielded by a stipulated protective order, and we therefore conclude that the "potential for input from defendant was outweighed by valid concerns for the witness[’s] safety, underlying the need for defendant's exclusion" ( People v. Baker , 139 A.D.3d 591, 591, 32 N.Y.S.3d 144 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1025, 45 N.Y.S.3d 377, 68 N.E.3d 106 [2016] ; see People v. Frost , 100 N.Y.2d 129, 135, 760 N.Y.S.2d 753, 790 N.E.2d 1182 [2003] ; People v. Israel , 176 A.D.3d 413, 414, 110 N.Y.S.3d 106 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1129, 118 N.Y.S.3d 516, 141 N.E.3d 472 [2020] ).
We conclude that the testimony regarding defendant's membership in a gang was properly admitted at trial inasmuch as it was relevant to establish motive and intent and to explain defendant's relationship with the victim (see People v. Bailey , 32 N.Y.3d 70, 83, 85 N.Y.S.3d 377, 110 N.E.3d 489 [2018] ; People v. Polk , 84 A.D.2d 943, 945, 446 N.Y.S.2d 678 [4th Dept. 1981] ) and the prejudicial effect of that testimony did not outweigh its probative value (see People v. Alvino , 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241-242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808 [1987] ). Moreover, the court alleviated any prejudice to defendant by providing an appropriate limiting instruction (see generally People v. Cruz , 261 A.D.2d 930, 930, 691 N.Y.S.2d 218 [4th Dept. 1999], lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1016, 697 N.Y.S.2d 575, 719 N.E.2d 936 [1999] ).
Defendant's sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants modification or reversal of the judgment.