| People v Reyes |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01978 [49 AD3d 565] |
| March 4, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v OlbinReyes, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert A. Schwartz and Sarah Spatt ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese,J.), rendered May 3, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession ofa weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon ajury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his right to confrontwitnesses was violated by the admission of certain statements made by two accomplices to policedetectives (see People v Marino, 21AD3d 430, 431 [2005], cert denied — US —, 126 S Ct 2930 [2006]). Inany event, the defendant's right to confront witnesses against him was not violated since thechallenged statements were not admitted for their truth but to show the police detectives' state ofmind and to demonstrate how the police investigation evolved (see Crawford v Washington,541 US 36, 59 [2004]; People vReynoso, 2 NY3d 820, 821 [2004]; People v Dean, 41 AD3d 495 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d1005 [2007]; People v Leftenant, 22AD3d 603 [2005]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt ofmurder in the second degree, as set forth in Point I of his supplemental pro se brief, isunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d10, 19-21 [1995]). In any event, viewing [*2]the evidence in thelight most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]),we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond areasonable doubt.
The County Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the defendant's proposedalibi testimony as the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to provide timelynotice (see CPL 250.20 [1]; People v Louisias, 29 AD3d 1017, 1019 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court providently exercised its discretionin admitting autopsy photographs into evidence. The photographs were neither excessivelygruesome nor introduced for the sole purpose of arousing the jurors' passions and prejudicing thedefendant (see People v Wood, 79 NY2d 958 [1992]; People v Pobliner, 32NY2d 356 [1973], cert denied 416 US 905 [1974]). The photographs were relevant tohelp illustrate and corroborate the testimony of the medical examiner (see People v Allan, 41 AD3d 727[2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 920 [2007]; People v Clark, 37 AD3d 487 [2007]; People v Daniels, 35 AD3d 495,497 [2006]). The mere fact that there was other available evidence with regard to these mattersdid not require the exclusion of the photographs (see People v Stevens, 76 NY2d 833[1990]).
The defendant's contention that the verdict sheet was improperly annotated (see CPL310.20 [2]), as set forth in Point I of his supplemental pro se brief, is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Hicks, 12 AD3d 1044,1045 [2004]). In any event, that contention is without merit.
The defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, as set forth in his main brief andsupplemental pro se brief, are without merit as defense counsel provided the defendant withmeaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Ritter, J.P., Florio, Carni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.