| People v Majors |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06049 [64 AD3d 1085] |
| July 30, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lance Majors,Appellant. |
—[*1] Stephen F. Lungen, District Attorney, Monticello (Bonnie M. Mitzner of counsel), forrespondent.
Kavanagh, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.),rendered December 13, 2007, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of driving whileintoxicated, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, recklessendangerment in the second degree, endangering the welfare of a child and reckless driving, andthe traffic infraction of speeding.
On March 24, 2007, defendant, with his 11-year-old daughter as a passenger, drove anautomobile through the Town of Liberty, Sullivan County at speeds in excess of 100 miles perhour. After he was stopped by the State Police, defendant was required to perform several fieldsobriety tests because the arresting officer suspected that he was intoxicated. When defendantfailed to successfully complete these tests, he was arrested and charged with driving whileintoxicated (hereinafter DWI). Later, it was also determined that defendant was operating amotor vehicle without a valid driver's license. At the State Police barracks, defendant refused tosubmit to a breathalyzer test, but agreed to provide a blood sample to determine the alcoholcontent in his blood. After arriving at the hospital where the sample was to be drawn, defendantchanged his mind and refused to submit to the test. In addition to DWI, defendant was chargedwith aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, recklessendangerment in the second degree, endangering the welfare of a child, reckless driving andspeeding. After a trial, at which he represented himself, defendant was convicted as charged, andsubsequently sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 2
Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that County Court deprived him of a fair trial byrepeatedly making statements in the presence of the jury that personally demeaned him andcalled into question the wisdom of his decision to represent himself at trial. While defendant didnot specifically object to each statement made by the court, he did, prior to summations,complain that the court's statements regarding the number of attorneys who had been assigned torepresent him throughout these proceedings could "prejudice [the jury] to some degree."Assuming that this comment served to preserve this issue for our review (see People vGraves, 194 AD2d 925, 927 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 719 [1993]; but seePeople v Comfort, 60 AD3d 1298, 1300 [2009]), we conclude, on the evidence presented,that defendant was not deprived of a fair trial.
The record reveals that, prior to trial, defendant had been assigned two attorneys to representhim, and each was later relieved because defendant was not satisfied with their efforts on hisbehalf. After defendant informed County Court that he would represent himself at trial, the courtassigned an attorney to assist him during those proceedings. On this appeal, defendant claimsthat he was deprived of a fair trial because of the numerous occasions that the court interruptedhim during opening and closing statements, as well as during his cross-examination of witnesseswho testified against him. In particular, defendant points to the court's statements that he claimsdisparaged his efforts to represent himself and characterized many of defendant's statements tothe jury as self-serving and inappropriate.
Initially, we note that the majority of the statements made by County Court to whichdefendant now objects were made outside the presence of the jury and were, in large measure,designed to encourage defendant to utilize the assistance of assigned counsel at trial. In addition,many of these comments sought, as is required, to "confirm[ ] defendant's continued desire torepresent himself and warn[ ] him of the dangers of self-representation and the importance ofcounsel" (People v McEachin, 29 AD3d 1221, 1222 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d903 [2006]; see People v Slaughter, 78 NY2d 485, 491-492 [1991]). Further, the courtwas obligated to address any sympathy that may have been generated by inappropriate commentsmade by defendant at trial to the effect that he was representing himself because he could notafford his own attorney.
We also note that County Court's interruptions of defendant during his cross-examination ofwitnesses, as well as during his opening and closing statements, were prompted by defendant'sown misconduct and the fact that statements that he made and questions he posed to witnesseswere clearly inappropriate and improper.[FN2]Equally important, while some of the [*3]court's statementswould have been better left unsaid, they did not, when viewed in their proper context, preventthe jury "from arriving at an impartial judgment on the merits" or deprive defendant of a fair trial(People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944, 946 [1978]; accord People v Richard, 30AD3d 750, 754 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 869 [2006]).
Mercure, J.P., Rose, Kane and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Footnote 1: At sentencing, defendant wasalso found to have been in contempt of court and was sentenced to an additional 15 days in jail.
Footnote 2: Examples include commentsmade by defendant during his opening statement where he asked the jury to question why theprosecution had removed certain individuals from the jury pool and statements he made duringthe voir dire asking whether any of the jurors had ever been "railroaded." At one point, heaccused assigned counsel of being a "mole" working for the District Attorney's office and onmultiple occasions he specifically told the judge, "You're driving me crazy" and "You have a lotof power LaBuda." He also accused the judge of being "Satan." Defendant also proceeded todraw on exhibits that had been received into evidence, but prior to their being reviewed by thejury.