People v. Cox
802 N.Y.S.2d 813
N.Y. App. Div.
2005
Check Treatment

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v GERALD D. O‘CONNOR, Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

September 30, 2005

21 A.D.3d 1362 | 802 N.Y.S.2d 810

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Peter E. Corning, J.), rendered May 1, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degrеe, robbery in the first degree (two counts), assault in the first degree and conspiracy in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from ‍​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‍be and thе same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment сonvicting him following a jury trial of, inter alia, murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]) and two counts of robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15 [1], [3]). By failing to renew his mоtion to dismiss at the close of his case, defendant has failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of felony murder (see

, rearg denied
;
). In any event, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that the victim‘s death was caused, in part, by the conduct оf the codefendant (see Penal Law § 20.00;
;
). We likewise conclude that the verdict with respect to felony murder ‍​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‍is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally
). “The jury was presented with conflicting expert testimony regarding the cause of death, and the record supports [the jury‘s] decision to credit the People‘s expert testimony” (
, lv denied
; see
, lv denied
;
, lv denied
;
, lv denied
).

We reject the further contention of defendant that County Court‘s jury charge on causation requires reversal. We agree with defendant that the court erred in refusing to charge foreseeability, but we conclude that the error is harmless (see generally

). The court‘s charge covered the sequence of conditions and events between the fracture of the victim‘s skull to the victim‘s fatal heart attack, and the court stated that “[a] defendant charged with murder . . . cannot escape liability merely beсause the wounds inflicted did not cause immediate death. It is sufficient if the wound inflicted was thе legal cause of death, i.e., if it started a chain of causation which was [a] competent producing cause of death.” The undisputed evidence established that the codefendant struck the victim on the head with a baseball bat, fracturing the victim‘s skull, and thus the ultimate harm, i.e., death, was a “reasonably ‍​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‍foreseeable result of thе conduct” (CJI2d [NY] Penal Law art 125—Causation; see
, rearg denied
). The court‘s error therefore is harmless because the evidence of defendant‘s guilt is overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that defendant would have been acquitted had the court charged forеseeability (see generally
). We reject the further contention of defendant thаt the court erred in denying his request to charge the affirmative defense to felony murder (see Penal Law § 125.25 [3] [a]-[d]). Because the evidence at trial established that defendant was aware that the codefendant was armed with a baseball bat, there is “[n]o reasonable view of the evidence” that would have permitted a jury to find that defendant was unaware that [the codefendant] was armed” (
, lv denied
; see
, lv denied
;
, lv denied
,
).

Also contrary to the contention оf defendant, the court properly denied his motion to suppress his statements to the police. “[W]here, as here, ‘a person in police custody has been issuеd Miranda warnings and ‍​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‍voluntarily and intelligently waives those rights, it is not necessary to repeat the warnings prior to subsequent questioning within a reasonable time thereafter, so long аs the custody [was] continuous‘” (

, quoting
, lv denied
, cert denied
; see
, lv denied
;
, lv denied
). The social “conversation” that followed the waivеr by defendant of his Miranda rights did not create a break in the “custodial circumstancеs” (
, appeal dismissed
; see
, lv denied
).

“The further contention of defendant that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct during summation is unpreserved for our review because defendant did not object to the prosecutor‘s allegedly inappropriate comments” (

, lv denied
,
; see
, affd
, rearg denied
;
, lv denied
637” court=“N.Y.” date=“2004“>3 NY3d 637 [2004]). In аny event, “[a]ny ‘improprieties were not so pervasive or egregious as to dеprive defendant of a fair trial‘” (
, lv denied
, quoting
, lv denied
; see
). In addition, we reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel ‍​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‍based on defеnse counsel‘s failure to object to the prosecutor‘s allegedly inappropriate comments (see
; see generally
).

Finally, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Smith, Pine and Hayes, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v GERALD D. O‘CONNOR, Appellant. [802 NYS2d 810]—