| People v Lantigua |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05863 [86 AD3d 429] |
| July 7, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JuniorLantigua, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miguel Mejias,Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Rodriguez,Appellant. |
—[*1] John R. Lewis, Sleepy Hollow, for Miguel Mejias, appellant. Edward M. Kratt, P.C., New York (Edward M. Kratt of counsel), for Antonio Rodriguez,appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Timothy C. Stone of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered October 27,2009, convicting defendant Junior Lantigua of conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencinghim to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed. Judgment, same court and Justice, renderedSeptember 24, 2009, convicting defendant Miguel Mejias of criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the first degree and conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him toconcurrent terms of 13 years and 5 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed. Judgment, same court andJustice, rendered February 9, 2010, convicting defendant Antonio [*2]Rodriguez of criminal possession of a controlled substance in thefirst degree and conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 12years and 5 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court's rulings relating to expert testimony were proper exercises of discretion. ThePeople's translator was fully qualified to translate the Spanish conversations intercepted onwiretaps. The court properly permitted an expert to give background testimony on large-scalenarcotics operations and to explain coded language. This information is beyond the knowledge ofthe average juror and would assist the jurors in understanding the evidence in a case involvingcomplex, international drug activity (see People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 505-506 [2002];People v Ramirez, 33 AD3d460 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 928 [2006]; People v Contreras, 28 AD3d 393 [2006], lv denied 7NY3d 847 [2006]). Given the type of case, use of a map of the Western Hemisphere to illustratethe international flow of drugs was also permissible and was not unduly prejudicial.
At the close of evidence and prior to summations, the court received a jury note requestinginformation and containing language that allegedly suggested the possibility of prematuredeliberations. The court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to conduct any individualinquiries, but instead addressed the problem by way of inquiries directed to the jury as a group,along with careful instructions (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 298-299 [1987]).Given the circumstances, there is no reason to believe there were actually any prematuredeliberations, and the court's actions were sufficient to avoid any prejudice.
The court properly precluded defendant Rodriguez from using a surveillance report toimpeach an investigator. The investigator did not prepare the report, no statements in it wereattributable to him, and Rodriguez did not lay any other foundation for use of the report (seePeople v Johnson, 227 AD2d 101, 102 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 987 [1996]).Rodriguez did not preserve his claim that the court's ruling violated his right of confrontation andwe decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on themerits.
The court's charge sufficiently conveyed the principle that the jury was required to considereach charge separately (see generally People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821, 823 [1995]).
Defendants did not preserve any of their remaining challenges to the court's instructions, orany challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence or the court's dismissal of a juror, and wedecline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them onthe merits.
We perceive no basis for reducing Rodriguez's sentence. Concur—Andrias, J.P.,Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.