THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v CHRISTOPHER L. ANDERSON, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York
June 19, 2014
987 NYS2d 681
Stein, J.P.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.), rendered August 15, 2012
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v CHRISTOPHER L. ANDERSON, Appellant. [987 NYS2d 681]—
Stein, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.), rendered August 15, 2012, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree (four counts), burglary
Over the course of three days in January 2012, there were three separate home invasions in Columbia County, the last of which occurred during the early morning hours of January 12 when David Chrapowitzky and Barbara Chrapowitzky woke up in their home and saw intruders. After the intruders left, the Chrapowitzkys called 911, described them as two males, one of whom was wearing a mask and the other a bandana across his face, and both wearing black hooded sweatshirts. Both of the men were armed and, after they exited the house, the Chrapowitzkys heard a vehicle leaving. Donald Krapf, a sergeant with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Department, responded to the 911 call and, while traveling to the residence, observed a suspicious vehicle. Krapf kept the vehicle in his view for a few minutes and was eventually able to see that defendant—who was driving—was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt. Krapf also observed the vehicle turn without a directional signal being employed and effectuated a traffic stop of the vehicle, which was occupied by defendant and four others, including Jeremy Bost and Joshua Spencer. Bost was asked to exit the vehicle and a pat down revealed two guns in the waistband of his pants. Physical evidence linking defendant to the three burglaries was found in the vehicle and, later, in defendant’s residence.
Defendant, Bost and Spencer were arrested and were each charged in an indictment with burglary in the first degree (four counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of weapon in the third degree,
Initially, we reject defendant’s claim that County Court failed to acquire personal jurisdiction over him because he was not arraigned in accordance with the statutory requirements (see
We also find no merit to defendant’s contention that County Court should have suppressed the evidence derived from the traffic stop. Probable cause to believe that a person has violated a provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law provides an ” ‘objectively reasonable basis’ ” for the stop of a vehicle (People v Brock, 107 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1072 [2013], quoting People v Pealer, 20 NY3d 447, 457 n 2 [2013], cert denied 571 US —, 134 S Ct 105 [2013]; see People v Thompson, 106 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2013]; People v McLean, 99 AD3d 1111, 1111-1112 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1013 [2013]; People v Viele, 90 AD3d 1238, 1239 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 868 [2012]; People v Green, 80 AD3d 1004, 1004-1005 [2011]). Here, Krapf testified at the probable cause hearing that, as he was responding to the 911 call, he observed defendant’s vehicle fail to signal when it made a left-hand turn (see
We turn next to defendant’s argument that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence because the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt his identity as a perpetrator in the home invasions. Shortly after the burglary at the Chrapowitzky home, defendant was seen driving a vehicle in a nearby location wearing clothing that matched the description of the perpetrator. Certain items linked to the three burglaries were found in the vehicle and Bost had two guns in his waistband. Also, the Chrapowitzkys and Edrick King, one of the victims of the first burglary, identified those guns as the weapons that were used by the perpetrators, and Lucas Samascott, the victim of the second burglary, identified items found in the vehicle and at defendant’s residence as items that had been taken from his home.2 Additionally, the Chrapowitzkys were able to make an in-court identification of defendant as one of the two perpetrators, and David Chrapowitzky identified the mask found in defendant’s vehicle as the mask worn by one of the intruders. Finally, King identified a black jacket that was later found in defendant’s jail locker as the jacket that was worn by the shorter of the two intruders at his home.
Catrina Lewis, who was in the vehicle with defendant, Bost and Spencer on all three occasions, testified that, each time, the vehicle stopped at a house, the three men got out of the vehicle and returned a short time later. Lewis also testified that during the first incident, the three men returned carrying a bag, which they later threw out of the window. That bag was recovered and the other victim of the first burglary identified it as a bag belonging to him that had been taken from his home. Shaeancye Anthony-Lewis, who was also in the car after the last home invasion, testified that she saw defendant hand a weapon to Bost. In addition, the People proffered evidence that both of the weapons recovered on Bost were operable, and that defendant had previously been convicted of a felony.
We are also unpersuaded by defendant’s claim that reversal is required due to a variety of trial errors. Initially, defendant contends that the People’s failure to turn over the video recorded questioning of King, as well as handwritten notes of that questioning taken by the investigator, constituted a Brady/Rosario violation that warranted dismissal of the charges relating to King. The District Attorney revealed that he had just learned of the existence of the investigator’s notes and the video recording at the conclusion of King’s trial testimony. After viewing these items outside the presence of the jury, defendant’s counsel objected to the late disclosure and requested, as a sanction, that the three relevant counts of the indictment be dismissed. Defendant’s counsel declined County Court’s offers to amend his opening statement and to present the video recording to the jury, but did reopen his cross-examination of King to question him regarding the inconsistencies between his pretrial statements and his trial testimony concerning various aspects of his description of the perpetrators.
While we agree that the People’s failure to timely disclose the aforementioned evidence constituted a Brady and/or Rosario violation, defendant failed to show “a reasonable possibility that the result at trial would have been different if the materials had been timely disclosed” (People v Williams, 50 AD3d 1177, 1180 [2008]; see
Nor did County Court err by precluding defendant from calling
Contrary to defendant’s assertion, we also conclude that County Court properly denied his request to charge the jury that Lewis and Anthony-Lewis were accomplices whose testimony required corroboration connecting defendant to the commission of the crimes (see
Notwithstanding the fact that both Lewis and Anthony-Lewis were arrested and charged with conspiracy in the fourth degree,3 when we consider the evidence presented at trial with respect to
In any event, even if the evidence adduced at trial created a factual question as to Lewis’s and Anthony-Lewis’s participation requiring County Court to provide the jury with an accomplice-in-fact instruction, the failure to do so would have been harmless error, as there is ample evidence corroborating their testimony which “tends to connect . . . defendant with the commission of the crime[s] in such a way as may reasonably satisfy the jury that [they were] telling the truth” (People v Reome, 15 NY3d 188, 192 [2010]; see People v Reed, 115 AD3d 1334, 1336 [2014]; compare People v Sage, 23 NY3d at 27). Among other things, defendant’s presence in the vehicle, the recovery of the guns from Bost’s waistband, the identification of defendant’s jacket by King, the in-court identification of defendant by the Chrapowitzkys, David Chrapowitzky’s identification of the mask found in defendant’s vehicle, and the recovery of the stolen items from defendant’s residence sufficiently corroborated the testimony of Lewis and Anthony-Lewis (see People v Jones, 111 AD3d 1148, 1150 [2013]).
To the extent not specially addressed herein, defendant’s remaining contentions have been considered and are unavailing.
McCarthy, Rose and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.