| People v Hudson |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08804 [90 AD3d 437] |
| Dcmbr 6, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ronald Hudson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheila O'Shea of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J.), rendered June 30,2009, as amended July 23, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offenderwhose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to a prison term of 15 years, unanimouslyaffirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There was a chain of circumstantial evidence, includingdefendant's behavior at the time of the drug transaction, that made no sense unless defendant wasa participant.
The court properly exercised its discretion in receiving proof that the codefendant's cellphone, which was already in evidence, had a contact listing for defendant's known nickname.This evidence was not received for its truth, but even if received for its truth, it was admissible asa statement by a coconspirator (see generally People v Bac Tran, 80 NY2d 170, 179[1992]). Viewing the chain of events in the light of common sense, we find there was ampleindependent evidence of a conspiracy between defendant and the codefendant. In any event, thecontact entry was not prejudicial, because it was merely cumulative to other evidence showing apattern of calls between the codefendant's phone and a phone that was sufficiently connected todefendant.
The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the investigating detective to testifyabout his interpretation of a surveillance videotape that showed suspicious events involving aparticular car. The detective, who did not witness those events, did not give an opinion aboutwhat the videotape depicted. Instead, he only explained his own state of mind and how it wasaffected by the videotape. This was relevant to explain the actions of the police in stoppingdefendant's car several weeks later (see People v Tosca, 98 NY2d 660, 661 [2002]).
The court also properly exercised its discretion in admitting an exhibit prepared by aprosecution witness, summarizing voluminous records of phone calls (see Ed Guth Realty vGingold, 34 NY2d 440, 451-452 [1974]). Defendant's only objection was a meritless claimthat the original records were not unduly voluminous. Defendant's remaining challenges to thisevidence are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As analternative holding, we also reject them on the merits.[*2]
Finally, defendant's complaints about the prosecutor'ssummation are also unpreserved, and we likewise decline to review them in the interest ofjustice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal (see People vOverlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People vD'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.