Opinion
12-15-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sylvester HUNT, Defendant–Appellant.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York (David B. Rochelson of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Diane N. Princ of counsel), for respondent.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York (David B. Rochelson of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Diane N. Princ of counsel), for respondent.
ACOSTA, J.P., ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, GISCHE, WEBBER, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael A. Corriero, J.), rendered October 10, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's application pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). The record supports the court's finding that the nondiscriminatory reasons provided by the prosecutor for the challenges in question, including those related to employment (see People v.
Wint, 237 A.D.2d 195, 197–198, 655 N.Y.S.2d 469 [1st Dept.1997], lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1103, 660 N.Y.S.2d 397, 682 N.E.2d 998 [1997] ), were not pretextual. This finding is entitled to great deference (see People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 552 N.E.2d 621 [1990], affd. 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 500 U.S. 352 [1991] ). Defendant failed to preserve his procedural objections to the court's handling of the application with regard to one of the jurors at issue (see People v. Richardson, 100 N.Y.2d 847, 853, 767 N.Y.S.2d 384, 799 N.E.2d 607 [2003] ), including the court's phrasing of its ruling (see e.g. People v. Rodriguez, 93 A.D.3d 595, 595, 941 N.Y.S.2d 99 [1st Dept.2012], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 966, 950 N.Y.S.2d 118, 973 N.E.2d 216 [2012] ), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court implicitly made a proper step-three ruling (see People v. Pena, 251 A.D.2d 26, 34, 675 N.Y.S.2d 330 [1998], lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 929, 680 N.Y.S.2d 470, 703 N.E.2d 282 [1998] ), that it did not revisit step one, and that it did not cut defendant off or stop him from making a fuller record if he chose to do so.
The People sufficiently authenticated a television cable that was alleged to have possibly been used to strangle the victim. It was unnecessary to establish a chain of custody, because witnesses identified the cable as having been in the victim's bedroom based on its distinctive paint stains, which were also visible in a crime scene photograph (see People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48, 59–60, 424 N.Y.S.2d 157, 399 N.E.2d 1177 [1979], cert. denied sub nom. Waters v. New York, 446 U.S. 942, 100 S.Ct. 2166, 64 L.Ed.2d 797 [1980] ; People v. Connelly, 35 N.Y.2d 171, 174, 359 N.Y.S.2d 266, 316 N.E.2d 706 [1974] ). The item was nonfungible, and defendant's arguments to the contrary are speculative and without merit. Defendant's objection was insufficient to preserve any of his other arguments regarding the cable, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find them unavailing.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). The record supports the jury's rejection of defendant's assertion that he was too intoxicated to form the requisite homicidal intent. Defendant engaged in purposeful activity (see e.g. People v. McCray, 56 A.D.3d 359, 867 N.Y.S.2d 440 [1st Dept.2008], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 760, 876 N.Y.S.2d 712, 904 N.E.2d 849 [2009] ), especially with regard to attempting to cover up the crime, and his claimed consumption of alcohol was not particularly extensive.