Opinion
592 KA 17-01490
07-17-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jaquey BRIDGES, 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., LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, WINSLOW, AND DEJOSEPH, 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, inter alia, murder in the second degree ( Penal Law § 125.25 [1] ). The case arose from an incident outside a nightclub in which the victim sustained a fatal gunshot wound to the chest. Just prior to the shooting, spectators had gathered around a fistfight involving the victim. After shots were fired, the spectators fled on foot. Video footage from outside the club appears to depict defendant fleeing while carrying an object in each hand. The object in his left hand appears to be a cell phone, while the object in his right hand is consistent with a handgun. At trial, an eyewitness testified that defendant ran past him with a chrome gun clasped in his hands. Another witness testified that he had been in jail with defendant, and that defendant confessed to him that he was guilty of committing the murder.
Defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. 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 according 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 conclude that the verdict is not 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] ).
Defendant further contends that County Court erred in denying his application pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 [1986] because the prosecutor failed to offer a race-neutral reason at step two of the Batson inquiry (see People v. Pescara , 162 A.D.3d 1772, 1774, 79 N.Y.S.3d 827 [4th Dept. 2018] ). We reject that contention. "To satisfy its step two burden, the nonmovant need not offer a persuasive or even a plausible explanation but may offer ‘any facially neutral reason for the challenge—even if that reason is ill-founded—so long as the reason does not violate equal protection’ " ( People v. Smouse , 160 A.D.3d 1353, 1355, 76 N.Y.S.3d 285 [4th Dept. 2018] ). Here, the prosecutor stated that she peremptorily struck the juror in question because he had been prosecuted by her office previously, and because he failed to disclose any history of prior arrests or convictions during voir dire. Although defendant contends that the juror had, in fact, accurately disclosed that information, we conclude that the prosecutor offered at least one race-neutral reason, i.e., that the juror had been prosecuted by her office previously (see People v. Knowles , 79 A.D.3d 16, 19-20, 911 N.Y.S.2d 483 [3d Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 896, 926 N.Y.S.2d 32, 949 N.E.2d 980 [2011] ; People v. McCoy , 266 A.D.2d 589, 591, 699 N.Y.S.2d 131 [3d Dept. 1999], lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 905, 707 N.Y.S.2d 389, 728 N.E.2d 988 [2000] ).
Contrary to defendant's additional contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying him access to certain mental health records of a witness after reviewing those records in camera. "[C]onfidential psychiatric records should be disclosed only when their confidentiality is significantly outweighed by the interests of justice" ( People v. Fullen , 133 A.D.3d 1235, 1236, 20 N.Y.S.3d 490 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 997, 38 N.Y.S.3d 107, 59 N.E.3d 1219 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Toledo , 270 A.D.2d 805, 806, 709 N.Y.S.2d 257 [4th Dept. 2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 858, 714 N.Y.S.2d 10, 736 N.E.2d 871 [2000] ). On the record before us, we conclude that defendant failed to establish that his need for the records outweighed the need to preserve their confidentiality (see Toledo , 270 A.D.2d at 806, 709 N.Y.S.2d 257 ). We similarly reject defendant's further contention that the court erred in refusing to subpoena additional mental health records of the same witness. "Inasmuch as the records [in question] pertain solely to the credibility of [that] witness, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's subpoena request" with respect to them ( People v. Robinson , 112 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 977 N.Y.S.2d 529 [4th Dept. 2013], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 1042, 993 N.Y.S.2d 255, 17 N.E.3d 510 [2014] ; see People v. Gissendanner , 48 N.Y.2d 543, 548, 423 N.Y.S.2d 893, 399 N.E.2d 924 [1979] ).
Defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the admission of alleged hearsay testimony because he failed to object on the specific grounds he now raises on appeal (see People v. Reibel , 181 A.D.3d 1268, 1269, 119 N.Y.S.3d 659 [4th Dept. 2020] ). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a] ).
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.