HOWIE, MAURICE R., PEOPLE v, KA 15-00922

Background

Defendant Maurice R. Howie (aka “Quell”), age 16 at the time, was tried jointly with a codefendant on robbery and murder charges arising from incidents on Feb 9, 2013 and Mar 6, 2013; the indictment originally charged 10 counts but defendant was convicted on four counts (two murders, two robberies).
The codefendant made out‑of‑court statements implicating defendant in two incidents; those statements were admitted at trial without objection from defendant’s counsel.
Defense counsel declined to seek severance pretrial for strategic reasons and expressly consented to the admission of the codefendant’s statements at trial.
Late in the month‑long trial the court limited cross‑examination of two witnesses concerning alleged threats and relocation assistance (including prosecutorial assistance); defense counsel moved for severance on that ground, which the court denied.
Defendant challenged (1) the Bruton error from admission of codefendant statements, (2) limitation on cross‑examination and denial of severance, (3) effectiveness of counsel, (4) legal sufficiency/weight of evidence for a robbery conviction, and (5) the sentence as unduly harsh; the Appellate Division affirmed the convictions and declined to reduce the sentence, with two judges dissenting only as to sentence concurrency.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	Howie’s Argument	Held
Admission of codefendant’s incriminating statements (Bruton)	Admission was permissible because defense counsel waived objection and chose joint trial strategy	Admission violated Bruton and prejudiced defendant; curative instruction insufficient	Court: Bruton violation occurred but was waived by defense counsel’s strategic consent; no reversal
Limitation on cross‑examination about threats/relocation assistance	Court properly exercised discretion to limit scope; prosecutor’s participation not admissible on direct	Limitation deprived defendant of impeachment evidence and warranted severance	Court: No abuse of discretion; denial of severance on that ground proper
Mid‑trial severance for mutually exclusive defenses coupled with Bruton error	Motion not preserved (defense raised different ground at trial); waived by counsel’s choices	Trial should have been severed due to Bruton + conflicting defenses	Court: Claim unpreserved and, as to Bruton, waived; decline to reach the new severance argument
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel made strategic choices and provided meaningful representation	Counsel ineffective for failing to seek severance and consenting to statements; failed to object to a witness misstatement	Court: Representation was meaningful; strategic decisions do not equal ineffectiveness; claim rejected
Sufficiency/weight of evidence for robbery conviction	Surveillance photos and other proof sufficiently identified defendant; verdict not against weight	Identification and proof insufficient	Court: Evidence legally sufficient; verdict not against the weight of the evidence
Sentence reduction in interest of justice	Sentence appropriate given heinous crimes and defendant’s lack of remorse	Sentence unduly harsh for adolescent offender; request for concurrent terms	Court: Declined to modify sentence; two dissenting judges would have ordered concurrent sentences (leave 25‑to‑life intact)

Key Cases Cited

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (statements by a codefendant that implicate defendant require careful analysis under Confrontation Clause)
People v. Cedeno, 27 N.Y.3d 110 (2016) (curative instruction may be insufficient to cure Bruton prejudice)
People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708 (1998) (distinguishing trial strategy from ineffective assistance)
People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137 (1981) (standard for meaningful representation review)
People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490 (1987) (standards for sufficiency and weight of evidence review)
People v. Reid, 71 A.D.3d 699 (2009) (waiver of Bruton claim by consent to joint trial/statement admission)