From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Woods

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Mar 22, 2013
104 A.D.3d 1309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-03-22

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Martin D. WOODS, Defendant–Appellant.

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Janet C. Somes of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), For Respondent.



Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Janet C. Somes of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), For Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[4] ). We agree with defendant that County Court erred in failing to consider the appropriate factors when it allowed the jury to hear portions of defendant's grand jury testimony that included references to being on parole, serving five years for robbing banks, and having on occasion sold drugs. “Prejudicial material ‘not necessary to a full comprehension of the’ directly related evidence ... is inadmissible, even though part of the same conversation ... or, indeed, of the same sentence” ( People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520, 531, 510 N.Y.S.2d 532, 503 N.E.2d 88). That principle applies to the admission at trial of a defendant's grand jury testimony just as it does to, e.g., audio recordings of telephone conversations ( see id.; People v. Ward, 62 N.Y.2d 816, 818, 477 N.Y.S.2d 602, 466 N.E.2d 142), statements made during the course of a crime to an undercover police officer ( see People v. Crandall, 67 N.Y.2d 111, 116–117, 500 N.Y.S.2d 635, 491 N.E.2d 1092), and admissions made to police officers during custodial interrogation ( see People v. Sanchez, 262 A.D.2d 997, 997–998, 693 N.Y.S.2d 364,lv. denied94 N.Y.2d 866, 704 N.Y.S.2d 542, 725 N.E.2d 1104;People v. Gates, 234 A.D.2d 941, 941, 652 N.Y.S.2d 679,lv. denied89 N.Y.2d 1011, 658 N.Y.S.2d 250, 680 N.E.2d 624;People v. Mitchell, 203 A.D.2d 948, 949, 611 N.Y.S.2d 400,lv. denied83 N.Y.2d 969, 616 N.Y.S.2d 22, 639 N.E.2d 762). The court allowed the jury to hear such portions of defendant's grand jury testimony after concluding only that the statements were voluntary. In doing so, the court failed to consider whether such evidence was relevant and probative to any issue in this case ( see generally People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 359–360, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59) and then, if so, whether “its probative value exceed[ed] the potential for prejudice resulting to the defendant” ( People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808).

We conclude, in any event, that the admission of those portions of defendant's grand jury testimony is harmless error inasmuch as there is overwhelming evidence of guilt, and there is no significant probability that defendant otherwise would have been acquitted ( see People v. Orbaker, 302 A.D.2d 977, 978, 754 N.Y.S.2d 492,lv. denied100 N.Y.2d 541, 763 N.Y.S.2d 7, 793 N.E.2d 421;see generally People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787). The evidence included the testimony of defendant's accomplice who entered the store and committed the robbery in question while defendant waited outside; the store's video surveillance showing defendant outside the store at the time of the robbery; and statements made by defendant to the police while in custody. We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that none requires reversal or modification of the judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Woods

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Mar 22, 2013
104 A.D.3d 1309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

People v. Woods

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Martin D. WOODS…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 22, 2013

Citations

104 A.D.3d 1309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
960 N.Y.S.2d 837
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 1964