| People v Headley |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 01616 [170 AD3d 746] |
| March 6, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v John Headley, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Melissa S. Horlick of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Rhea A. Grob ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (MarkDwyer, J.), rendered May 8, 2014, convicting him of offering a false instrument for filing in thefirst degree (four counts) and rewarding official misconduct in the second degree (two counts),upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions of two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree based uponhis transmission of two emails containing false or misleading information to the Law Departmentof the New York City Transit Authority is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People vDavidson, 150 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2017]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the lightmost favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we findthat it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant's guilt ofoffering a false instrument for filing in the first degree with respect to these two counts(see Penal Law § 175.35; People v Taylor, 82 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2011]; Matter of Norman v Hynes, 20 AD3d125, 132 [2005]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independentreview of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342,348-349 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view thewitnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383,410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the recordhere, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to those two counts was not against the weight ofthe evidence (see People v Romero,7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in admitting evidenceof prior bad acts. The evidence was probative of the defendant's intent with respect to the chargedcrimes (see People v Bayne, 82 NY2d 673, 676 [1993]; People v Rodriguez, 148 AD3d938, 938 [2017]; People vCockett, 95 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2012]). Furthermore, the probative value of the evidenceoutweighed its prejudicial effect, which the court minimized by giving the jury limitinginstructions (see People v Wright,160 AD3d 667, 669 [2018]; Peoplev Holden, 82 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2011]; People v Ramirez, 23 AD3d 500, 501 [2005]).
The defendant's contentions regarding his cross-examination by the prosecutor at trial areunpreserved for appellate review because he failed to raise a specific objection that theprosecutor's questions exceeded the scope of the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]; People v Ellis, 138 AD3d 1136,1136 [2016]; People v Gill, 54AD3d 965, 965-966 [2008]). In any event, the prosecutor's cross-examination of thedefendant was proper as a whole, and to the extent that any of the prosecutor's questions wereimproper, the improper questions were not so flagrant or pervasive as to deprive the defendant ofa fair trial (see People v Creekmur,137 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2016]; People v Wright, 62 AD3d 916, 917-918 [2009]).
Near the end of its charge, the Supreme Court told the jury that it could request any and allevidentiary exhibits by sending a note. When the jury commenced deliberations, defense counseland the People agreed that the court could furnish the jury with the exhibits upon its request,without reconvening. During deliberations, the jury sent two different notes requesting variousexhibits, and the court complied with those requests without reconvening. Now, the defendantcontends that, in so doing, the court violated its obligations under CPL 310.30 and People vO'Rama (78 NY2d 270, 277-278 [1991]), and that the error requires reversal notwithstandingthe defendant's consent to this procedure. The defendant's contention is without merit. So long asthe defendant consents beforehand, a court may furnish the jury with evidentiary exhibits withoutreconvening (see CPL 310.20 [1]; People v Damiano, 87 NY2d 477, 487 [1996];People v Kirk, 27 AD3d 383,384 [2006]; cf. People v Roberites,115 AD3d 1291, 1292-1293 [2014]; see generally William C. Donnino, PracticeCommentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, CPL 310.20). The court's handling of the jurynotes requesting evidentiary exhibits did not implicate either CPL 310.30 or the notice provisionsoutlined in People v O'Rama (78 NY2d 270 [1991]) (see People v Damiano, 87NY2d at 487; People v Houston,143 AD3d 737, 740 [2016]; Peoplev Knudsen, 34 AD3d 496, 497 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record reveals that his trial counsel providedmeaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Elder, 152 AD3d 787,790 [2017]; People v Cruz, 127AD3d 987, 988 [2015]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Miller and Iannacci, JJ., concur.