| People v Hamilton |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07658 [66 AD3d 921] |
| October 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Rohan Hamilton, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea Bruffee, andA. Brendan Stewart of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal,J.), rendered January 11, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers wasviolated because his fingerprint and palm print cards were admitted into evidence through thetestimony of a print examiner, rather than through the testimony of the detective who took theprints. However, since the defendant did not object to the admission of the print cards on thisground, his claim that his right of confrontation was violated is unpreserved for appellate review(see People v Liner, 9 NY3d856 [2007]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]; People v Ward, 57 AD3d 582,583 [2008]; People v Howell, 44AD3d 686 [2007]). In any event, the print cards themselves were not directly accusatory (see People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d136, 160 [2008], cert denied sub nom. Meekins v New York, 557 US —, 129S Ct 2856 [2009]), and were properly admitted into evidence through the testimony of the printexaminer, who compared a latent palm print found at the crime scene with the defendant's palmprint and concluded that they matched. This expert, who, in effect, accused the defendant of acrime by testifying that his palm print matched the latent palm print found at the crime scene,was available for cross-examination. Thus, the defendant's right of confrontation was notviolated (cf. People v Rawlins, 10NY3d 136, 157 [2008]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court also properly admitted autopsy photographsinto evidence. The photographs were not excessively gruesome, and were not introduced for thesole purpose of arousing the jurors' passions and prejudicing the defendant (see People vWood, 79 NY2d 958, 960 [1992]; People v Cartwright, 61 AD3d 695, 696 [2009]; People v Prowse, 60 AD3d 703,704 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 858 [2009]; People v Reyes, 49 AD3d 565, 566-567 [2008]). Rather, thephotographs were relevant both to help illustrate and corroborate the testimony of the medialexaminer, and to establish intent (see People v Stevens, 76 NY2d 833, 836 [1990];People v Prowse, 60 AD3d at 704; People v Reyes, 49 AD3d [*2]at 566-567; People v Allan, 41 AD3d 727, 728 [2007]). The fact that there wasother evidence available with regard to these matters did not require the exclusion of thephotographs (see People v Stevens, 76 NY2d at 836; People v Reyes, 49 AD3dat 566-567; People v Allan, 41 AD3d at 728).
The defendant's remaining contentions raised in his supplemental pro se brief areunpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Eng,Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur. [See 14 Misc 3d 1203(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 52399(U).]