| People v Jones |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 03770 [139 AD3d 1189] |
| May 12, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vJustin K. Jones, Appellant. |
Donna C. Chin, Ithaca, for appellant.
Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (John R. Thweatt of counsel), forrespondent.
Mulvey, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County(Hayden, J.), rendered October 18, 2013, upon a verdict convicting defendant of thecrime of murder in the second degree.
In the early morning hours of November 8, 2012, defendant invited Brian Martin(hereinafter the victim) to an apartment in the City of Elmira, Chemung County to useheroin. According to defendant, a heated argument arose between the victim anddefendant around 1:00 a.m.. The victim, according to defendant, ran toward him with asword and, in response, defendant pulled a gun out of his pocket and shot and killed thevictim. Defendant then unsuccessfully tried to amputate the victim's leg in order toremove him from the apartment. Defendant wrapped the victim's body with a sleepingbag and garbage bags, placed the body in the trunk of the car of the victim's mother andabandoned the car down the street. Later that morning, defendant contacted a friend(hereinafter the CI) to request help, garbage bags and bleach. Upon entering theapartment, the CI observed spots of blood throughout. Defendant told the CI that he hadused a meat cleaver and a sword to sever the victim's leg and "dragged [the body] out [ofthe residence] and drove it off." The CI later reported to law enforcement that defendanthad told him the identity of the victim, that the reason he killed him was because thevictim was a "snitch" and that he was glad that the bullet did not go all the way throughbecause it would have made more of a mess in the apartment.
[*2] Defendant was thereafter arrested and indicted on onecount of murder in the second degree. After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty ascharged and was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life. Defendant appeals.
Defendant's main contention on appeal is that County Court erred in failing to takeappropriate action when defense counsel requested an instruction to trial spectators whowere wearing T-shirts bearing a printed photograph of the victim with the letters "R.I.P."More specifically, defendant contends that the T-shirts were inherently prejudicial andimpacted the jurors' emotions, and, as such, he was deprived of a fair trial. We disagree.Following opening statements, defense counsel requested an instruction that thespectators not dress in that fashion in front of the jury. County Court noted that out of 40or 50 spectators in the courtroom, "five or six" were wearing the objectionable T-shirtsand they were mixed in among the other spectators. The court also noted that none ofthese spectators had done anything to draw attention to their attire and that they had beensitting very quietly listening to the proceedings. The court declined to give the requestedinstruction and, instead, advised defense counsel that if any outburst or display were totake place, it would then "squash" any such effort immediately by appropriateinstruction.
The Court of Appeals very recently addressed the issue of spectator conduct inPeople v Nelson (27 NY3d 361 [2016]). On facts strikingly similar to those presented here, the Court held in Nelson that thetrial court erred in failing to instruct spectators to remove or cover up their T-shirts. TheCourt held that, although such failure to instruct spectators constitutes error, such errormay, under certain circumstances, nonetheless be subject to a harmless error analysis(id. at *6-7). Harmless error analysis is inappropriate when the appellate courtconcludes that the spectator display and conduct was "so egregious" and the trial court'sresponse was "so inadequate" as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. In suchcircumstances, the conviction must be reversed on this ground and a new trial ordered(id. at *6-7). On the other hand, if the appellate court finds that the spectatordisplay and conduct was not so egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, thenharmless error analysis applies and reversal is not required if the evidence of thedefendant's guilt is overwhelming and "there is no significant probability that the trialcourt's failure to instruct the spectators to remove or cover the T-shirts upon defensecounsel's request contributed to the verdict" (id. at *6-7). The Court alsoinstructed appellate courts to "review the trial court's action or inaction for abuse ofdiscretion," citing that court's unique position to view all of the surroundingcircumstances and fashion an appropriate intervention (id. at *6).[FN*]
Here, applying the Court of Appeals' holding in Nelson, we find that CountyCourt's failure to instruct the spectators to remove or cover up their T-shirts was error,but the court was attentive to the courtroom environment and interacted with thespectators in an authoritative yet sensitive manner. In addition, there is no evidence thatthe spectators who wore the T-shirts called attention to themselves during the trial, nordid the photograph or letters "R.I.P." convey anything other than remembrance of thevictim. Consequently, we conclude that their conduct was not so egregious as to requirereversal. We also find that the proof of defendant's guilt was so overwhelming that therewas no reasonable possibility that this error might have contributed to his conviction(see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242, 243 [1975]).
[*3] We next reject defendant's claim that his sentence,which was the maximum permissible sentence, was harsh and excessive. County Courtappropriately characterized the severity of defendant's crime as "[c]old-blooded murder"and explained the principles of general and specific deterrence, stating that it was boundto fashion a sentence that would serve as both a deterrent to "others in our communitywho may be inclined to commit a similar crime" and to deter defendant "from everhaving an opportunity to commit this kind of crime again, to never kill again." As such,we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction ofthe sentence (see People vMathews, 134 AD3d 1248, 1251 [2015]).
Defendant's remaining contentions, all of which assert—for variousreasons—that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, have beenexamined and found to be lacking in merit.
Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Garry and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.
Footnote *:In Nelson, theCourt of Appeals found that the spectator conduct was not egregious and that the trialcourt's error was harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt(id. at *7).