| People v Mattison |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 04569 [162 AD3d 905] |
| June 20, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ernest Mattison, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Karen M. Kalikow and Mary Beth Peppito ofcounsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and William H. Branigan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (DeborahStevens Modica, J.), rendered April 23, 2015, convicting him of murder in the second degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Cecil Schiff (hereinafter the decedent) was murdered in September 1980 during a robbery ofhis apartment. With no eyewitnesses and no match to latent fingerprints that were recovered fromthe crime scene, the investigation stalled. In 2008, a detective with the New York City PoliceDepartment's Latent Print Unit randomly selected the case for fingerprint analysis, anddetermined that the defendant's fingerprints matched three fingerprints recovered from a jewelrybox and two other boxes found in the decedent's bedroom. Further investigation revealed that thedefendant, who was a 17-year-old high school student at the time of the murder, was absent fromschool on the day of the murder. The defendant was arrested and indicted in 2012, more than 31years after the crime was committed. After a jury trial, he was found guilty of murder in thesecond degree.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt of murder in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, infulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence(see CPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the defendant's motion to dismissthe indictment based on preindictment delay. The Court of Appeals has articulated the followingfactors to consider when determining whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial or due [*2]process right to prompt prosecution has been violated: (1) the extentof the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the nature of the underlying charge, (4) whetherthere has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration, and (5) whether there is anyindication that the defense has been prejudiced by the delay (see People v Decker, 13 NY3d 12, 14-15 [2009]; People v Romeo, 12 NY3d 51, 55[2009]; People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445 [1975]; see also Barker vWingo, 407 US 514 [1972]). An unjustifiable delay in commencing prosecution may requiredismissal even though no actual prejudice to the defendant is shown (see generally People vLesiuk, 81 NY2d 485, 490 [1993]). However, a determination made in good faith to delayprosecution for sufficient reasons will not deprive the defendant of due process even though theremay be some prejudice to the defendant (see People v Vernace, 96 NY2d 886 [2001];People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241, 254 [1978]). "Where there has been [an] extended delay,it is the People's burden to establish good cause" (People v Decker, 13 NY3d at 14).
Here, the pre-indictment delay of more than 31 years was extensive (see People v Romeo, 47 AD3d 954[2008], affd 12 NY3d 51 [2009]). However, a significant amount of the delay was due toa lack of evidence identifying a viable suspect. After the defendant's fingerprints were matched tothe fingerprints recovered from the three boxes in the decedent's bedroom, further investigationwas conducted. The People had a good-faith basis to wait until they had sufficient evidence toarrest the defendant. Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination that thePeople met their burden of demonstrating good cause for the delay (see People v Decker, 13 NY3d 12[2009]; People v Metellus, 157AD3d 821 [2018]; People vAllen, 134 AD3d 730 [2015]). The reasons for the delay establishing the People's goodcause, the nature of the crime, and the fact that there was no period of pre-indictmentincarceration in connection with this matter outweigh the extent of the delay. The courtappropriately balanced the requisite factors in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss theindictment (see People v Decker, 13NY3d 12 [2009]; People vRobinson, 82 AD3d 1269 [2011]).
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in responding to a jury note requestingthat the court reread and explain its instruction regarding the evaluation of competing inferencesof guilt and innocence. Specifically, the defendant contends that the court simply reread, and didnot explain, its original instruction on the subject. This contention is without merit. A trial courtis vested with discretion in framing its response to a jury note because it is in the best position toevaluate the jury's request in the first instance, but the court's response must be meaningful(see People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982]). "The factors to be evaluated are theform of the jury's question, which may have to be clarified before it can be answered, theparticular issue of which inquiry is made, the supplemental instruction actually given and thepresence or absence of prejudice to the defendant" (People v Malloy, 55 NY2d at302).
Here, the instruction given in response to the jury's inquiry was not inadequate. Indetermining the most appropriate way to handle the jury's request, the Supreme Court took theview that the original charge given was neither confusing nor inaccurate (cf. People vLourido, 70 NY2d 428, 435 [1987]), and should not be further clarified, and that any attemptto alter the charge after the already extensive jury deliberations would only lead to confusion(see People v Malloy, 55 NY2d at 303). Moreover, after the original charge was repeatedto the jury, the jurors gave no indication that their concern had not been satisfied (see People v Williams, 150 AD3d902 [2017]; cf. People v Bleau, 276 AD2d 131 [2001]; People v Pyne, 223AD2d 910 [1996]; People v Ciervo, 123 AD2d 393 [1986]). Accordingly, the court'sresponse to the jury note was meaningful.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by the Supreme Court's improperadmission of hearsay evidence. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]), and, in any event, any error does not require reversal.
The defendant's contentions regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summationare partially unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and, in any event,without merit. Leventhal, J.P., Cohen, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.