| People v Washington |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01690 [93 AD3d 681] |
| March 6, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Bradford Washington, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and Rebecca Height of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Buchter, J.), rendered January 31, 2008, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, andendangering the welfare of a child, under indictment No. 999/05, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court rendered February 11, 2009, convictinghim of murder in the second degree, under indictment No. 1000/05, upon his plea of guilty, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that the court improperly permitted a detective to testify abouthis attempts to find the defendant and that it improperly charged the jury on consciousness ofguilt are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Arriaga, 77 AD3d 846, 847 [2010]). In any event,those claims are without merit. First, the detective's testimony supported the People's argumentthat the defendant's attempt to evade the police demonstrated his consciousness of guilt(id. at 847; see People vSolimini, 69 AD3d 657, 658 [2010]; People v Scharpf, 60 AD3d 1101, 1103 [2009]; People vAllen, 61 AD2d 619, 622 [1978], affd 48 NY2d 760 [1979]; cf. People vStilwell, 244 NY 196, 199 [1926]). Second, a charge on consciousness of guilt waswarranted by the evidence, and the court's charge here was correct (see People v Arriaga,77 AD3d at 847; People vRobinson, 10 AD3d 696 [2004]; CJI2d[NY] Consciousness of Guilt).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor changed the theory of the prosecution duringhis summation is without merit. A fair reading of the summation reveals that the prosecutor neverwavered from the People's theory that the defendant had been the gunman. In any event, thedefendant's status as a principal or accomplice has no bearing on the theory of liability (seePeople v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 408-409 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004];People v Rivera, 84 NY2d 766, 770-771 [1995]).
Inasmuch as the defendant raises no independent claim regarding his conviction underindictment No. 1000/05, that judgment must be affirmed in light of the affirmance of thejudgment on indictment No. 999/05 (cf. People v Fuggazzatto, 62 NY2d 862, 863[1984]). Balkin, J.P., Belen, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.