| People v Thomas |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04857 [85 AD3d 1572] |
| June 10, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Chester J.Thomas, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Geoffrey Kaeuper of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Ellen M. Yacknin, A.J.), renderedDecember 14, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sexualact in the first degree, criminal contempt in the first degree and assault in the third degree.
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 of,inter alia, criminal sexual act in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [1]). The victim wasdefendant's long-time girlfriend and the mother of his three children. Defendant failed to preservefor our review his contention that County Court's Molineux ruling deprived him of a fairtrial (see generally People v Parkinson, 268 AD2d 792, 794 [2000], lv denied 95NY2d 801 [2000]). In any event, that contention lacks merit. The court properly admittedevidence of three prior instances in which defendant engaged in physical abuse against thevictim, inasmuch as such evidence was relevant to establish defendant's intent and motive, aswell as to provide appropriate background (see People v Meseck, 52 AD3d 948, 950 [2008]; People v Westerling, 48 AD3d965, 966-968 [2008]).
Defendant further contends that he was deprived of a fair trial when the court sustained thePeople's objection to the remark made by defense counsel on summation, urging the jury to drawa negative inference from the failure of a certain police officer to testify. We reject thatcontention. The victim testified that the officer who responded following her 911 call informedher that "no judge would ever believe" that her live-in boyfriend had sodomized her.Consequently, the victim's written statement to the police did not include an allegation ofsodomy. At trial, defense counsel attacked the victim's credibility and emphasized that her storyhad changed from when she initially reported the incident to when she testified at trial andalleged that defendant sodomized her. Defense counsel thereby suggested that the sodomy neveroccurred because, if it had, the victim would have reported it to the responding officer. Onsummation, defense counsel reiterated that point and further suggested that the victim lied whenshe testified that the officer's statement that a judge would not believe her allegations dissuadedher from reporting the sodomy in her written statement. Defense counsel then argued that, in theevent that the officer had in fact made such a statement to the victim, the officer should havebeen called to testify with respect thereto. The objection of the People to defense counsel's [*2]statement was sustained and the jury was instructed to disregard thestatement.
"A defendant not necessarily entitled to a missing witness charge may nonetheless try topersuade the jury to draw inferences from the People's failure to call an available witness withmaterial, noncumulative information about the case" (People v Williams, 5 NY3d 732, 734 [2005]). In the event that theofficer would have merely confirmed the victim's story, such testimony would have beencumulative of the victim's testimony, and the People were not required to call him as a witness(see People v Ramos, 305 AD2d 115 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 586 [2003]).Moreover, defendant never made an offer of proof with respect to the officer's prospectivetestimony, and thus there was no good faith basis to comment on the People's failure to call himas a witness (see People v Pepe, 262 AD2d 7 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1024[1999]; see also People v Barton, 19AD3d 304 [2005]; People v Holland, 221 AD2d 947 [1995], lv denied 87NY2d 922 [1996]).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the People improperlybolstered the testimony of a witness (seePeople v Brown, 82 AD3d 1698, 1700 [2011]), and we decline to exercise our power toreview that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6] [a]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Smith, J.P.,Peradotto, Carni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.