From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smyre

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 11, 2021
195 A.D.3d 1458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

595 KA 19-01169

06-11-2021

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael SMYRE, Defendant-Appellant.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PHILIP ROTHSCHILD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.


FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PHILIP ROTHSCHILD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree ( Penal Law § 125.25 [3] ) and burglary in the first degree (§ 140.30 [1]). We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing to admit in evidence a statement of a codefendant as a declaration against penal interest. The portions of the codefendant's statement regarding defendant's involvement in the crime were not against the codefendant's penal interest (see People v. Ennis , 11 N.Y.3d 403, 412-413, 872 N.Y.S.2d 364, 900 N.E.2d 915 [2008], cert denied 556 U.S. 1240, 129 S.Ct. 2383, 173 L.Ed.2d 1301 [2009] ; People v. Arias , 243 A.D.2d 309, 309, 664 N.Y.S.2d 522 [1st Dept. 1997], lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 1004, 676 N.Y.S.2d 132, 698 N.E.2d 961 [1998] ; see generally People v. Brensic , 70 N.Y.2d 9, 16, 517 N.Y.S.2d 120, 509 N.E.2d 1226 [1987] ). Moreover, there was no showing that the codefendant's statement is reliable (see Ennis , 11 N.Y.3d at 413, 872 N.Y.S.2d 364, 900 N.E.2d 915 ; People v. Roberts , 288 A.D.2d 403, 403-404, 733 N.Y.S.2d 230 [2d Dept. 2001], lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 760, 742 N.Y.S.2d 621, 769 N.E.2d 367 [2002] ; see generally People v. Shabazz , 22 N.Y.3d 896, 898, 977 N.Y.S.2d 141, 999 N.E.2d 504 [2013] ). Inasmuch as "the statement was properly excluded as inadmissible hearsay, the defendant's contention that his constitutional right to present a defense was violated is without merit" ( People v. Simmons , 84 A.D.3d 1120, 1121, 924 N.Y.S.2d 273 [2d Dept. 2011], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 928, 942 N.Y.S.2d 467, 965 N.E.2d 969 [2012] ; see generally People v. Jones , 129 A.D.3d 477, 477-478, 12 N.Y.S.3d 27 [1st Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 931, 17 N.Y.S.3d 93, 38 N.E.3d 839 [2015] ).

We reject defendant's further contention that the court erred in denying his Batson challenge with respect to two prospective jurors. The People gave race-neutral reasons for the peremptory challenges, and defendant did not meet his ultimate burden of establishing that those reasons were pretextual (see People v. Switts , 148 A.D.3d 1610, 1611, 52 N.Y.S.3d 178 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1087, 64 N.Y.S.3d 177, 86 N.E.3d 264 [2017] ; People v. Johnson , 38 A.D.3d 1327, 1328, 833 N.Y.S.2d 338 [4th Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 866, 840 N.Y.S.2d 895, 872 N.E.2d 1201 [2007] ). "[T]he court was in the best position to observe the demeanor of the prospective juror[s] and the prosecutor, and its [implicit] determination that the prosecutor's explanation[s were] race-neutral and not pretextual is entitled to great deference" ( People v. Dandridge , 26 A.D.3d 779, 780, 809 N.Y.S.2d 353 [4th Dept. 2006], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 1032, 852 N.Y.S.2d 18, 881 N.E.2d 1205 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and we see no reason to disturb that determination.

Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), and affording great deference to the jury's credibility determinations (see People v. Romero , 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 [2006] ), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.


Summaries of

People v. Smyre

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 11, 2021
195 A.D.3d 1458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

People v. Smyre

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael SMYRE…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 11, 2021

Citations

195 A.D.3d 1458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
195 A.D.3d 1458

Citing Cases

People v. Smyre

Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 4th Dept: 195 A.D.3d…

People v. Palmer

Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in rejecting her Batson challenge after the People's exercise of…