| People v Carncross |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01022 [59 AD3d 1112] |
| February 11, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James J.Carncross, Appellant. |
—[*1] William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), renderedFebruary 14, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of aggravatedcriminally negligent homicide and reckless driving.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict ofaggravated criminally negligent homicide (Penal Law § 125.11) and reckless driving(Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212). The conviction arises out of an incident in which a NewYork State Trooper lost control of his vehicle and crashed into a tree while pursuing amotorcycle driven by defendant, who was traveling in excess of the speed limit. Defendant failedto preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish thathe possessed the requisite mens rea for criminally negligent homicide (see People vGray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). The further contention of defendant that the evidence islegally insufficient to establish that he caused the death of the Trooper is without merit. "To beheld criminally responsible for a homicide, a defendant's conduct must actually contribute to thevictim's death . . . by 'set[ting] in motion' the events that result in the killing" (People v DaCosta, 6 NY3d 181,184 [2006]; see People v Matos, 83 NY2d 509, 511 [1994]). "Liability will attach even ifthe defendant's conduct is not the sole cause of death . . . if the actions were asufficiently direct cause of the ensuing death" (DaCosta, 6 NY3d at 184 [internalquotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 280 [1984]). Here,"the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant's conduct 'set in motion and legally causedthe death' " of the Trooper (DaCosta, 6 NY3d at 185).
As defendant correctly concedes, he failed to preserve for our review his contention thatCounty Court erred in its jury charge (see People v Richardson, 203 AD2d 932 [1994],lv denied 84 NY2d 831 [1994]), and we decline to exercise our power to review thatcontention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).Contrary to defendant's further contentions, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting thePeople's motion to disqualify defense counsel (see People v Gordon, 272 AD2d 133, 134[2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 890 [2000]; People v Liuzzo, 167 AD2d 963 [1990],appeal dismissed 77 NY2d 866 [1991]), and the grand jury proceedings were notdefective. We conclude with respect to the grand jury proceedings that the opinion testimony of[*2]a New York State Police Investigator concerning the ultimateissues of causation and whether the Trooper was acting in the course of his official duties at thetime of his death did not improperly invade the province of the grand jury (cf. People vChampion, 247 AD2d 901 [1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 971 [1998]). In any event,even assuming, arguendo, that the opinion testimony was improper, we note that "the submissionof some inadmissible evidence will be deemed fatal only when the remaining evidence isinsufficient to sustain the indictment" (People v Huston, 88 NY2d 400, 409 [1996]), andthat is not the case here. We further conclude that the prosecutor's legal instructions to the grandjury on causation were not " 'so misleading or incomplete as to substantially undermine theintegrity of the proceedings' " (People v Wooten, 283 AD2d 931, 932 [2001], lvdenied 96 NY2d 943 [2001], quoting People v Caracciola, 78 NY2d 1021, 1022[1991]).
Defendant further contends that the court erred in refusing to suppress his statements to thepolice because his right to counsel had attached when he made those statements, and he made thestatements based on the advice of defense counsel, who was incompetent. We agree withdefendant that his right to counsel had attached at the time he made the statements. In addition,we conclude that the general rule that "the State is not charged with the responsibility ofguaranteeing effective legal representation upon the entry of counsel at the preaccusatory,investigatory stage of a criminal matter, i.e., before the commencement of formal adversarialjudicial criminal proceedings" does not apply here (People v Claudio, 83 NY2d 76, 78[1993]). As the court properly determined, defendant's right to effective assistance of counselattached when a violation of probation petition was filed shortly before defendant made thosestatements. We nevertheless conclude that suppression was not required inasmuch as defendantreceived meaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147[1981]). We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they arewithout merit. Present—Martoche, J.P., Fahey, Green and Pine, JJ.