| People v Swank |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06105 [109 AD3d 1089] |
| September 27, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vSteven M. Swank, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gregory S. Oakes, District Attorney, Oswego (Courtney E. Pettit of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W. Hafner, Jr., J.),rendered February 24, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, ofrape in the second degree, criminal sexual act in the second degree (two counts) andunlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of,inter alia, rape in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.30 [1]), defendant contendsthat the verdict is against the weight of the evidence based on his own testimony, thetestimony of the victim, and the lack of evidence supporting the victim's testimony.Specifically, defendant contends that the victim's testimony is not credible because hertrial testimony was internally inconsistent and was also inconsistent with her statementsto the police and her grand jury testimony. Viewing the evidence in light of the elementsof the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), weconclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generallyPeople v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). "Although a different result wouldnot have been unreasonable, the jury was in the best position to assess the credibility ofthe witnesses and, on this record, it cannot be said that the jury failed to give theevidence the weight it should be accorded" (People v Orta, 12 AD3d 1147, 1147 [2004], lv denied4 NY3d 801 [2005]; see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).
Defendant failed to seek immunity for a witness that he called to testify at a hearingon his CPL article 330 motion, and he thus failed to preserve for our review his furthercontention that the prosecutor abused his discretion "when he refused to request that [thewitness] be granted immunity from prosecution" (see generally People v Callicut, 101 AD3d 1256, 1262 n 4[2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1096 [2013]; People v Norman, 40 AD3d 1130, 1131 [2007], lvdenied 9 NY3d 925 [2007]; People v Grimes, 289 AD2d 1072, 1073 [2001],lv denied 97 NY2d 755 [2002]). In any event, that contention is without meritinasmuch as the decision of a District Attorney to request immunity for a witness isdiscretionary " 'and not reviewable unless the District Attorney acts with bad faith todeprive a defendant of his or her right to a fair trial' " (People v Bolling, 24 AD3d1195, 1196 [2005], affd 7 NY3d 874 [2006]; see generally CPL50.30), and here there was no showing of bad faith (see People v [*2]Adams, 53 NY2d 241, 247-248 [1981]). Furthermore,the witness's testimony "could have been produced at trial with the exercise of duediligence, and it was not of 'such character as to create a probability that had suchevidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been favorable to thedefendant' " (People vBroadnax, 52 AD3d 1306, 1308 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 830 [2008],quoting CPL 330.30 [3]).
Defendant failed to seek dismissal of a sworn juror on the ground that she wasgrossly unqualified, and thus he also failed to preserve for our review his contention thatCounty Court erred in refusing to grant that relief (see generally People v Hicks, 6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]).We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion inthe interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We reject defendant's furthercontention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel'sfailure to move to disqualify the juror as grossly unqualified. It is " 'incumbent ondefendant to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations' forcounsel's alleged shortcomings" (People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998],quoting People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]), and defendant failed tomake such a showing here, particularly in light of the indications in the record that thejuror in question was the only juror who was of the opinion that defendant should not beconvicted.
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J.,Smith, Centra, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.