People v. Dix

Sep 30, 1997
Reporters:
, ,

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of arson in the third degree (Penal Law § 150.10), defendant ‍‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‍contends that County Court erred in admitting testimony concerning the “positive indications” of the accelerant-sniffing dog because the foundation proof was insufficient. Defendant failed to preserve that issue for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Were we to reach the merits, we would agree with ‍‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‍defendant that the People failed to lay a proper foundation to establish the reliability of the dog (see, People v Price, 54 NY2d 557, 564) because neither fire investigator testified to the past performance or effectiveness of the dog as an accelerant-sniffing dog. The ‍‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‍error in the admission of the investigators’ testimony, however, is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that the error contributed to defendant’s conviction (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242).

We reject the ‍‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‍contentions of defendant that his statement was obtained in violation of his right to counsel (see, People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610) and was not sufficiently corroborated (see, CPL 60.50; People v Booden, 69 NY2d 185, 187). Finally, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor ‍‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‍severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Brandt, J.—Arson, 3rd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.