THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JACQUES DORCINVIL, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
996 N.Y.S.2d 661
[Prior Case History: 25 Misc 3d 1215(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 52105(U).]
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On January 14, 2007, the defendant beat his girlfriend (hereinafter the victim) with a metal chair and broom, and kicked her then-12-year-old son, while at the victim‘s apartment in Brooklyn. The defendant was arrested and an order of protection was issued, prohibiting the defendant from contacting the victim or her son.
On May 4, 2007, while the order of protection was still in effect, the defendant stabbed the victim‘s son repeatedly in the neck, head, and body with a butcher knife. The defendant also stabbed the victim numerous times in the head, neck, and body with the same knife. The victim died from her injuries. Subsequently, the defendant was apprehended in Florida after he attempted to procure a passport.
During the jury trial, the victim‘s son, who was then 15 years old, testified regarding the relevant events. At the conclusion of the trial, the defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, two counts of aggravated criminal contempt, assault in the second degree, and assault in the third degree. We conclude that the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial and affirm the judgment of conviction.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him was violated when Detective Joseph Perry testified for the prosecution that, after he spoke with Detective John Briano, who had arrived earlier at the scene of the stabbing, Detective Perry considered the defendant a suspect (see
The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that Detective Perry‘s testimony that the police received numerous tips to a hotline was improperly admitted since it constituted impermissible hearsay and violated his right to confrontation (see People v Bonds, 118 AD3d 717, 718 [2014]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430, 431 [2005]). In any event, this contention is without merit, as the testimony was properly admitted to complete the narrative and explain the course of the police investigation (see People v Monroe, 216 AD2d at 494). Moreover, since no statements were elicited, the testimony did not violate the defendant‘s right to confrontation (cf. People v McEaddy, 41 AD3d 877, 878-879 [2007]).
Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting into evidence a photograph of the victim‘s bloody body. Photographic evidence “should be excluded only if its sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant” (People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 370 [1973]; see People v Stevens, 76 NY2d 833, 835 [1990]; People v Thompson, 108 AD3d 732, 733 [2013]; People v Thomas, 99 AD3d 737, 738 [2012]). Here, the photograph was not offered for the sole purpose of arousing the emotions of the jurors (see People v Sampson, 67 AD3d 1031, 1032 [2009]). Moreover, the photograph was not so inflammatory as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Thompson, 108 AD3d at 733; People v Thomas, 99 AD3d at 738).
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in permitting Detective Perry to testify that he ran “computer checks” on the defendant and learned of “past complaints” and the defendant‘s “[p]ast arrests” (see generally People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241 [1987]). The defendant also contends that the court erred in denying his application for a missing witness charge with respect to Detective Briano. Any errors in this regard were harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of
The defendant‘s contention that the prosecutor made improper comments during summation is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to object to any of the challenged comments (see
The defendant‘s contention that the Supreme Court improperly permitted the victim‘s then-15-year-old son to testify at trial, raised in point I of his pro se supplemental brief, is without merit. His further contention, raised in point I of his pro se supplemental brief, that the court erred in denying his request for that witness‘s psychological records, is not properly before this Court as it is based on matter dehors the record on appeal (see People v Boley, 116 AD3d 965, 965 [2014]).
The defendant‘s contentions, raised in point II of his pro se supplemental brief, that the Supreme Court improperly admitted a video showing the victim and improperly admitted a photograph of the victim while still alive are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. The defendant‘s contention, raised in point II of his pro se supplemental brief, that the court improperly admitted two arrest photographs of him is without merit.
The defendant‘s contention, raised in point III of his pro se supplemental brief, that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to sever the trial on the ground that the incidents underlying the indictment which occurred on January 14, 2007, and on May 4, 2007, constituted separate criminal transactions is without merit (see People v Thompson, 119 AD3d 966 [2014]; People v Dayton, 66 AD3d 797, 797 [2009]).
The defendant‘s contention, raised in point IV of his pro se supplemental brief, that the Supreme Court erred in permitting the People to elicit certain testimony that violated the court‘s suppression ruling and constituted impermissible hearsay and bolstering is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
The defendant‘s contention, raised in his main brief and in point v of his pro se supplemental brief, that he was deprived of the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel is
The defendant‘s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the cumulative effect of the alleged errors is without merit. Dickerson, J.P., Leventhal, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.