| People v Garrow |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06118 [75 AD3d 849] |
| July 15, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael J.Garrow, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Kavanagh, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main Jr., J.),rendered October 5, 2009, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of recklessendangerment in the first degree (two counts).
Defendant was charged with two counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree basedon an April 2008 incident in which he rammed his pickup truck into his estranged wife'sautomobile as the two vehicles were traveling at a high rate of speed across a two-lane bridge inthe Town of Chateaugay, Franklin County. Earlier that day, defendant had argued with his wifeand followed her and a friend after they left defendant's house in her vehicle. A high-speed chaseensued and, when the vehicles reached the two-lane bridge, defendant drove his truck into thelane for oncoming traffic and, while traveling at speeds that approached 50 miles per hour,sideswiped his wife's vehicle before passing it. The bridge in question rises more than 100 feetabove the river below, is protected on both sides by guiderails, and the contact between the twovehicles caused the wife to briefly lose control of her automobile, forcing it close to theguiderail. After the wife regained control of her vehicle, she drove to a nearby police station andreported the incident. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged and ultimatelywas sentenced to, among other things, concurrent prison terms of 1½ to 4½ years.Defendant now appeals and we affirm.[*2]
Initially, defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency ofthe evidence is unpreserved for appellate review because, in his motion to dismiss, he neverspecifically identified any deficiencies that he claimed existed in the proof presented by theprosecution (see People v Hawkins,11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People vNesbitt, 69 AD3d 1109, 1110-1111 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 843 [2010]).Further, he did not renew his application after both sides had completed their presentation ofproof at trial (see People v Lane, 7NY3d 888, 889 [2006]; People vVargas, 72 AD3d 1114, 1116 [2010]).
Moreover, in our view, the verdict was supported by the weight of the credible evidencepresented at trial (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; People v Shutter, 72 AD3d 1211,1213 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 892 [2010]; People v Arce, 70 AD3d 1196, 1198-1199 [2010]), whichestablished that "under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life,[defendant] recklessly engage[d] in conduct which create[d] a grave risk of death to" his wifeand her passenger (Penal Law § 120.25). By driving his truck within three feet of hiswife's automobile as both vehicles were traveling at a high rate of speed, and then deliberatelysideswiping her vehicle as it was crossing a bridge that spanned a steep river valley, defendantnecessarily placed the wife and her passenger in mortal danger and exposed them to a grave riskof death. Simply stated, the gravity of the risk attendant to such conduct is, in our view,self-evident and provides ample support for the jury's guilty verdict (see People v Payne, 71 AD3d1289, 1290-1291 [2010]).
As for defendant's challenges to the facial validity of the indictment, they are not preserved(see People v Halpin, 261 AD2d 647, 647 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 971[1999]) and, in any event, have no merit. Additionally, defendant claims that the charge giventhe grand jury, especially as it relates to the elements of the crime charged in the indictment, wasinadequate. However, it is well settled that such instructions are sufficient so long as theyprovide "enough information to enable [the grand jury] intelligently to decide whether a crimehas been committed and to determine whether there exists legally sufficient evidence to establishthe material elements of the crime" (People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389, 394-395[1980]; see People v Thatcher, 9AD3d 682, 684-685 [2004]). Here, in addition to giving the statutory definition of recklessendangerment in the first degree (see People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d at 395 n 1), theDistrict Attorney charged the grand jury as to the state of mind that had to exist for one to haveacted with depraved indifference and the special meaning that term has under this state's law(see People v Levens, 252 AD2d 665, 666-667 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 927[1998]; compare People vHuntington, 57 AD3d 1238, 1239-1240 [2008]). Finally, our finding that the evidencepresented at trial that resulted in defendant's conviction was not against the weight of theevidence—and, thus, necessarily legally sufficient (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349[2007])—precludes any attack on the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grandjury that resulted in his indictment (seePeople v Witherspoon, 66 AD3d 1456, 1457 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 942[2010]; People v Gratton, 51 AD3d1219, 1221 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 736 [2008]; see also People v Peryea, 68 AD3d1144, 1147 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 804 [2010]; People v Carpenter, 35 AD3d1092, 1093 [2006]).
Next, while defendant asserts that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel attrial, he has not demonstrated " 'the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations' forcounsel's allegedly deficient conduct" (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005], quoting People vRivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). Equally important, while errors may have been made bycounsel during the trial, none was so egregious as to prejudice defendant's right to a fair trial(see People v Caban, 5 NY3d at 152; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).In particular, [*3]defendant claims that counsel should haverequested a bill of particulars prior to trial to provide him with additional information regardingthe charges pending against him so as to aid counsel in preparing a defense. However, defendant,per a pretrial stipulation, had unrestricted access to the prosecution's file and, given the nature ofthe charges filed against him, was obviously aware of the conduct upon which those chargeswere based (see People v Brown, 248 AD2d 742, 743 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d922 [1999]; compare People v Fleegle, 295 AD2d 760, 763 [2002]). In addition, as partof the stipulation, County Court agreed to review the grand jury minutes for legal sufficiency andto conduct pretrial hearings to determine if certain evidence the prosecution proposed to presentat trial should be suppressed. Also, despite defendant's contentions to the contrary, aFrye hearing was not required because expert testimony offered by the prosecution didnot involve any novel procedures or innovative scientific theory (see People v Wernick,89 NY2d 111, 115-116 [1996]; People v Yates, 290 AD2d 888, 890 [2002]).
Defendant also argues that counsel failed to respond appropriately during the voir dire tostatements by three perspective jurors, which suggested that each harbored preconceived notionsas to his guilt and were biased against him. However, two of these prospective jurors weredismissed on consent before any evidence was presented at trial, and the third, while at the outsetof the voir dire made statements that raised concerns regarding her impartiality, uponclarification gave an unequivocal and credible assurance under oath that she could render animpartial verdict if chosen to serve (seePeople v Molano, 70 AD3d 1172, 1174 [2010]; People v Button, 56 AD3d 1043, 1045 [2008], lvdismissed 12 NY3d 781 [2009]). Moreover, counsel, in not objecting to the juror beingseated, may well have had sound tactical reasons for not seeking to remove her from the jurypanel (see People v Colon, 90 NY2d 824, 826 [1997]; People v Sprowal, 84NY2d 113, 119 [1994]).
Defendant also argues that counsel erred by failing to object when the arresting officer, onredirect examination, testified to statements defendant is alleged to have made for which nonotice had been given prior to trial (see CPL 710.30). However, pretrial notice of suchstatements when introduced on redirect examination is not necessarily required, especiallywhere, as here, the testimony was offered to rebut evidence developed during cross-examinationof the witness (see People v Walton, 214 AD2d 805, 808 [1995], lv denied 86NY2d 785 [1995]; People v Robinson, 205 AD2d 836, 838 [1994], lv denied 84NY2d 831 [1994]). Likewise, evidence that defendant asked a witness to tamper with defendant'swife's vehicle prior to the incident was properly admitted on redirect examination to rebuttestimony given by the witness on cross-examination that defendant had previously told him thathe loved his estranged wife (see Peoplev Greene, 13 AD3d 991, 993 [2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 789 [2005]).
Finally, defendant argues that counsel, based on our decision in People v Stockholm(279 AD2d 704 [2001]), should have moved to dismiss one of the counts in the indictmentbecause, even though there were two people in the wife's vehicle at the time of the incident, thecounts in the indictment allege the same course of conduct (id. at 706).[FN*] Initially, we note that the submission of both counts in the indictment to the jury did not exposedefendant to an enhanced sentence (see Penal Law § 70.25 [2]) and did not resultin any meaningful prejudice to [*4]him (see People vVargas, 72 AD3d at 1120). Also, the failure to make such a claim given the various legalopinions that exist on this issue (see People v Stockholm, 279 AD2d at 706; see alsoPeople v Payne, 71 AD3d at 1290-1291; People v Erickson, 45 AD3d 902, 903 [2007], lv denied 9NY3d 1033 [2008]; People vLozada, 35 AD3d 969, 969-970 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 947 [2007]) cannotconstitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Carter, 7 NY3d 875, 876-877 [2006]).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be meritless.
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.
Footnote *: To the extent that defendantraises the same issue on appeal, it is unpreserved and we discern no reason to exercise ourinterest of justice jurisdiction (seePeople v Thompson, 34 AD3d 931, 932 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 929 [2006]).