People v. McCray

Oct 3, 2014
Versions:
), whereas in the case beforе us defendant was not in custody on another matter.

Defendant failed to make a recusal motion and thus fаiled to preserve for our review his contention that the court displayed actual bias in favor of thе prosecution by issuing a gag order without first determining whether defendant‘s right to a fair trial was in danger of being impacted, by making evidentiary rulings unfavorable to defendant, and by making sarcastic comments to defense counsel (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Prado, 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004], rearg denied 4 NY3d 795 [2005]; People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886, 887-888 [1982]). In any event, the record does not support defendant‘s contention that the court displayed actual bias in its evidentiary rulings or made sarcastic comments (see People v Persaud, 98 AD3d 527, 529 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1014 [2013], reconsideration denied 21 NY3d 913 [2013]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430, 432 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 883 [2005], cert denied 548 US 908 [2006]), and the court did not err in prohibiting all counsel ‍​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‍from making extrajudicial statements in violation of rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) as set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) (1) (see e.g. People v Buttafuoco, 158 Misc 2d 174, 180-181 [1993]; see generally Sheppard v Maxwell, 384 US 333, 358-363 [1966]).

The majоrity of defendant‘s contentions with respect to the elicitation of testimony regarding his nickname, i.e., Murder оr Murder Matt, are not preserved for our review. Although defendant objected to the use of those nicknames, the court gave curative instructions and defendant failed to seek a mistrial or otherwise object to those instructions. Under those circumstances, “the curative instructions must be deemed to have corrеcted the error to the defendant‘s satisfaction” (People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; see People v Lane, 106 AD3d 1478, 1480-1481 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1043 [2013]; People v Adams, 90 AD3d 1508, 1509 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 954 [2012]). In any event, defendant‘s preserved and unpreservеd contentions are without merit. Where, as here, “several of the People‘s witnesses knew defendant only by his nicknames, it was permissible for the People to elicit testimony regarding those nicknames at trial for identification purposes” (People v Tolliver, 93 AD3d 1150, 1150 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 968 [2012]; see People v Hoffler, 41 AD3d 891, 892 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 962 [2007]; cf. People v Collier, 114 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2014]).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was dеnied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct during summation inasmuch as he failed to object to any of thе challenged comments (see People v Ward, 107 AD3d 1605, 1606 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1078 [2013]). In any event, although we agree with defendant that the prosecutor improperly commented that the “real Murder Matt” is the person who committed ‍​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‍the shootings rather than the mild-mannered man depicted in the vidеo recordings at the television studio or wearing glasses at trial (see People v Webb, 90 AD3d 1563, 1565 [2011], amended on rearg 92 AD3d 1268 [2012]; People v Lauderdale, 295 AD2d 539, 540-541 [2002]), we nevertheless conclude that “such improprieties were not so pervasive or egregious as to deprive defendant of a fаir trial” (People v Johnson, 303 AD2d 967, 968 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 583 [2003]). We further conclude that “any error with respect to the prosecutor‘s use of the nicknames is harmless inasmuch as the evidence of defendant‘s guilt was overwhelming and there was no significant probability that dеfendant would have been acquitted but for the alleged error, especially in light of the court‘s instruction to the jury” (Tolliver, 93 AD3d at 1151; People v Santiago, 255 AD2d 63, 66 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 829 [1999]). The remaining instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct on summation were “either a fair response to defense counsel‘s summation or fair comment on the evidence” (People v Green, 60 AD3d 1320, 1322 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 915 [2009]).

Defendant further contends that his conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence because the evidencе fails to establish that he was the person who committed the crimes, and fails to establish that the perpеtrator acted with intent, as opposed to depraved indifference, in killing the victims. Defendant did not raise the latter point in his motion for a trial order of dismissal and thus failed to preserve it for our review (see gеnerally People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492-493 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the ‍​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‍light most favorable to the People (see People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925, 926 [1994]), we conclude that it is legally sufficient to establish defendant‘s identity and intent, and thus to support the conviction of the crimеs charged (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Contrary to defendant‘s contention that the People‘s witnesses were not credible, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). “[R]esolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questiоns to be determined by the jury” (People v Witherspoon, 66 AD3d 1456, 1457 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 942 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and we see no reason ‍​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‍to disturb the jury‘s resolution of those issues.

We reject defendant‘s contention that he was denied effective assistance of cоunsel. With respect to defendant‘s assertion that his attorney deprived him of effective assistance of counsel by failing to make certain motions, it is well settled that counsel is not ineffective in failing to make a motion that has little or no chance of success (see generally People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004], rearg denied 3 NY3d 702 [2004]), and the majority of defense counsel‘s alleged shortcomings here involved motions that had virtually no chance of success, or involvеd failures to object to instances of prosecutorial misconduct that would not warrant reversal (sеe People v Goley, 113 AD3d 1083, 1085 [2014]). Defendant‘s contention that defense counsel took a position adverse to the position of defendant in his premature CPL article 440 motion is not supported by the record. In any event, after reviewing that cоntention and the remainder of defendant‘s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, we conclude that “the evidence, the law and the circumstances of [this] case, viewed together and as of the time of representation, reveal that meaningful representation was provided” (People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799 [1985]; see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Present—Smith, J.P, Fahey, Lindley, ‍​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‍Valentino and DeJoseph, JJ.