| People v Beckingham |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09661 [57 AD3d 1098] |
| December 11, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy D.Beckingham, Appellant. |
—[*1] John W. Muehl, District Attorney, Cooperstown (John F. Lambert of counsel), forrespondent.
Kane, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Coccoma, J.), renderedJuly 17, 2006, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree.
Defendant's wife was found unconscious on the floor of the home she shared with defendant. Hersons and emergency personnel were unable to resuscitate her. An autopsy revealed that she had abruise on the back of her head, 12 broken ribs and two lacerations of the liver which had caused about20% of her blood to leak into her abdomen. Defendant was accused of causing her death and chargedwith manslaughter in the first degree. After a jury found him guilty, County Court denied defendant'smotion to set aside the verdict, without a hearing, and sentenced him to 25 years in prison with fiveyears of postrelease supervision. On defendant's appeal, we affirm.
The verdict is based upon legally sufficient evidence. The forensic pathologist who performed theautopsy testified that the victim died due to blood loss from the liver lacerations, which were caused byblunt force trauma. Contrary to the defense theory, the pathologist explained that the liver lacerationsand the majority of the rib fractures could not have been caused by CPR, which was performed on thevictim after she had expired. Aside from this medical proof, defendant admitted, in statements to police,that he engaged in a physical [*2]altercation with his wife, was the lastperson to see her alive, and may have blacked out and hurt her. Viewed in a light most favorable to thePeople, this evidence and its related permissible inferences were legally sufficient to support the jury'sverdict (see People v Degiorgio, 36AD3d 1007, 1008 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 921 [2007], cert denied 552 US—, 128 S Ct 506 [2007]; People vLopez, 9 AD3d 692, 694 [2004]).
The verdict was also not against the weight of the evidence. In contrast to the People's expertpathologist, who actually performed the autopsy, defendant presented the testimony of a forensicpathologist who did not dispute the physical findings, but reached a different conclusion as to the causeand manner of death. The defense expert opined that most of the rib fractures and both liver lacerationswere caused by CPR and did not contribute to the victim's death. According to this expert, the victimcommitted suicide through an overdose of alcohol and prescription medications. Viewing the evidencein a neutral light, but giving deference to the jury's credibility determination favoring the People'spathologist over defendant's pathologist, we cannot say that the jury failed to accord the evidence itsappropriate weight (see People vWalton, 16 AD3d 903, 904 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 796 [2005]).
County Court did not err in denying defendant's motion to set aside the verdict. Defendant basedhis motion on newly discovered evidence, namely the affidavit of a jailhouse informant which recantedhis trial testimony concerning admissions allegedly made to him by defendant. An affidavit which merelyimpeaches, contradicts or recants prior testimony or statements is generally considered unreliable and,by itself, insufficient to require a court to set aside a verdict (see People v Saunders, 301AD2d 869, 872 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 542 [2003]; People v Stamps, 268AD2d 886, 887 [2000], lv denied 94 NY2d 925 [2000]). Here, the informant's allegationswere, in part, belied by documentary and reliable evidence. The court did not abuse its discretion indenying defendant's motion without a hearing, as the motion papers and oral argument provided asufficient basis to render a decision (see People v Saunders, 301 AD2d at 872; People vStamps, 268 AD2d at 888).
We reject defendant's contention that his state and federal due process rights were violated throughthe police officers' failure to videotape his interrogation (see People v Dukes, 53 AD3d 1101, 1101 [2008]; People v Nelson, 52 AD3d 534, 535[2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 739 [2008]; People v Rosas, 30 AD3d 545, 545 [2006], affd 8 NY3d 493[2007]). Neither the constitution nor New York law requires the police to electronically recordinterviews or interrogations.
Finally, we reject defendant's challenge to County Court's charge on circumstantial evidence, as thecourt provided the jury with the instruction—taken directly from the Pattern JuryInstructions—for a case based solely upon circumstantial evidence (see CJI2d[NY]Evidence—Circumstantial Evidence; see also People v Sanchez, 61 NY2d 1022, 1024[1984]). Defendant's remaining contentions have been reviewed and are also without merit.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.