Opinion
1128 KA 18-01566
02-05-2021
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (WILLIAM CLAUSS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DANIEL GROSS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (WILLIAM CLAUSS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DANIEL GROSS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, 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] ). Defendant contends that County Court committed O'Rama violations that constituted mode of proceedings errors when it failed to give defense counsel an opportunity for input before answering a note from the jury and when it delegated to a court deputy the responsibility of answering the jury's question (see People v. O'Rama , 78 N.Y.2d 270, 277-278, 574 N.Y.S.2d 159, 579 N.E.2d 189 [1991] ). We reject that contention. " ‘[T]he O'Rama procedure is not implicated when the jury's request is ministerial in nature and therefore requires only a ministerial response’ " ( People v. Nealon , 26 N.Y.3d 152, 161, 20 N.Y.S.3d 315, 41 N.E.3d 1130 [2015] ; see People v. Williams , 142 A.D.3d 1360, 1362, 38 N.Y.S.3d 342 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1128, 51 N.Y.S.3d 24, 73 N.E.3d 364 [2016] ; People v. Lewis , 140 A.D.3d 1593, 1595, 34 N.Y.S.3d 806 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1029, 45 N.Y.S.3d 380, 68 N.E.3d 109 [2016] ). Here, "the only reasonable interpretation of the [portion of the] note in question" ( People v. Mitchell , 46 A.D.3d 480, 480, 849 N.Y.S.2d 209 [1st Dept. 2007], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 842, 859 N.Y.S.2d 401, 889 N.E.2d 88 [2008] ) is that the jury's request referred to a transcript that was provided as an aid to the jurors when they listened during the trial to the recorded police interview of defendant, but the transcript was not admitted in evidence. It was not a substantive inquiry by the jury (see Williams , 142 A.D.3d at 1362, 38 N.Y.S.3d 342 ; People v. Ziegler , 78 A.D.3d 545, 546, 911 N.Y.S.2d 331 [1st Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 838, 921 N.Y.S.2d 203, 946 N.E.2d 191 [2011] ), and there was no error by the court in delegating to a court deputy the responsibility of notifying the jury that the item they were seeking was not an admitted exhibit and could not be provided to them (see People v. Miller , 8 A.D.3d 176, 177, 779 N.Y.S.2d 187 [1st Dept. 2004], mod on other grounds 6 N.Y.3d 295, 812 N.Y.S.2d 20, 845 N.E.2d 451 [2006] ).
Contrary to defendant's further contention concerning the validity of two search warrants, he did not make the necessary showing that "a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard of the truth, was included by the affiant in the [search] warrant affidavit[s], and ... [that such] statement [was] necessary to the finding of probable cause" ( People v. Navarro , 158 A.D.3d 1242, 1243, 71 N.Y.S.3d 297 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1120, 81 N.Y.S.3d 379, 106 N.E.3d 762 [2018] [internal quotation marks omitted]). The court therefore did not err in refusing to hold a Franks / Alfinito hearing (see Franks v. Delaware , 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 [1978] ; People v. Alfinito , 16 N.Y.2d 181, 264 N.Y.S.2d 243, 211 N.E.2d 644 [1965] ) or in refusing to suppress the evidence in question.
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 reject defendant's contention that the evidence is legally insufficient (see generally People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). Additionally, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime 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 reject defendant's further 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 ).