Opinion
2022-00603
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.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Gordon J. Cuffy, A.J.), rendered January 30, 2019. The judgment convicted defendant upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
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 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1025 [2016]; see People v Frost, 100 N.Y.2d 129, 135 [2003]; People v Israel, 176 A.D.3d 413, 414 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1129 [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 [2018]; People v Polk, 84 A.D.2d 943, 945 [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 [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 [4th Dept 1999], lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1016 [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.