It is not enough that "the defendant expressed hope that the witness would not testify against him or her at trial. Rather, the People must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in misconduct aimed at least in part at preventing the witness from testifying and that those misdeeds were a significant cause of the witness's decision not to testify" ( People v. Smart, 23 N.Y.3d at 220, 989 N.Y.S.2d 631, 12 N.E.3d 1061 ; seePeople v. Ellis, 198 A.D.3d 674, 675, 155 N.Y.S.3d 189 [2021] ; People v. Burgess, 198 A.D.3d 808, 809, 152 N.Y.S.3d 629 [2021] ). At the Sirois hearing, the People established that the victim initially cooperated with law enforcement, provided a sworn statement and testified before the grand jury. The People also demonstrated that the victim stopped showing up for work approximately one month before the trial and, during the week prior to trial, began calling family members from blocked or unrelated phone numbers and told her mother that she felt threatened and did not want to be "traced."
It is not enough that "the defendant expressed hope that the witness would not testify against him or her at trial. Rather, the People must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in misconduct aimed at least in part at preventing the witness from testifying and that those misdeeds were a significant cause of the witness's decision not to testify" (People v Smart, 23 N.Y.3d at 220; see People v Ellis, 198 A.D.3d 674, 675 [2021]; People v Burgess, 198 A.D.3d 808, 809 [2021]). At the Sirois hearing, the People established that the victim initially cooperated with law enforcement, provided a sworn statement and testified before the grand jury.