Opinion
203 KA 19-01959
04-22-2022
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael HURST, Defendant-Appellant.
THE SAGE LAW FIRM GROUP PLLC, BUFFALO (KATHRYN FRIEDMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. LOWRY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
THE SAGE LAW FIRM GROUP PLLC, BUFFALO (KATHRYN FRIEDMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. LOWRY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, 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, inter alia, two counts of criminal sexual act in the first degree ( Penal Law § 130.50 [1] ), three counts of rape in the first degree (§ 130.35 [1]), and one count of sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65 [1]). We affirm.
We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in denying his request for access to all of the mental health records of the victim in this case. "Mental health records are discoverable where a defendant can demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that the records contain data relevant and material to the determination of guilt or innocence, a decision which will rest largely on the exercise of a sound discretion by the trial court" ( People v. Tirado , 109 A.D.3d 688, 688, 970 N.Y.S.2d 342 [4th Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 959, 977 N.Y.S.2d 190, 999 N.E.2d 555 [2013], reconsideration denied 22 N.Y.3d 1091, 981 N.Y.S.2d 676, 4 N.E.3d 978 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v. Gissendanner , 48 N.Y.2d 543, 548, 423 N.Y.S.2d 893, 399 N.E.2d 924 [1979] ). Such "records should be disclosed only when their confidentiality is significantly outweighed by the interests of justice" ( Tirado , 109 A.D.3d at 688, 970 N.Y.S.2d 342 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Felong , 283 A.D.2d 951, 952, 724 N.Y.S.2d 380 [4th Dept. 2001], lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 862, 730 N.Y.S.2d 36, 754 N.E.2d 1119 [2001] ).
Here, defendant requested, inter alia, all of the victim's mental health records based on the People's Brady disclosures indicating that the victim had made several statements during preparation for her grand jury testimony that raised concerns about her mental state. Under those circumstances, the court conducted an in camera review of the requested mental health records, and granted defendant's request in part by turning over to him approximately 50 pages of redacted mental health records. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in disclosing to defendant only those select portions of the victim's mental health records because it properly "balanced defendant's 6th Amendment right to cross-examine an adverse witness and his right to any exculpatory evidence against the countervailing public interest in keeping certain matters confidential" ( People v. McCray , 102 A.D.3d 1000, 1005, 958 N.Y.S.2d 511 [3d Dept. 2013], affd 23 N.Y.3d 193, 989 N.Y.S.2d 649, 12 N.E.3d 1079 [2014], rearg denied 24 N.Y.3d 947, 994 N.Y.S.2d 47, 18 N.E.3d 749 [2014] ; see Gissendanner , 48 N.Y.2d at 549-551, 423 N.Y.S.2d 893, 399 N.E.2d 924 ). In reaching our conclusion, we have ourselves reviewed the voluminous mental health records of the victim sought by defendant, and note that the court "provided an appropriate sample of documents that covers all of the victim's relevant and material mental health issues" ( McCray , 102 A.D.3d at 1005, 958 N.Y.S.2d 511 ). Indeed, the records sought by defendant that the court did not disclose were either wholly irrelevant to the determination of defendant's guilt or innocence (see Tirado , 109 A.D.3d at 688-689, 970 N.Y.S.2d 342 ), or largely cumulative of those records that the court did, in fact, disclose to defendant (see McCray , 23 N.Y.3d at 198-199, 989 N.Y.S.2d 649, 12 N.E.3d 1079 ). Thus, there is no " ‘reasonable possibility’ " that defendant would have been acquitted if the jury had access to all of the records sought by defendant ( id. at 198, 989 N.Y.S.2d 649, 12 N.E.3d 1079 ).
Defendant's contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction is unpreserved for our review because defendant's general motion for a trial order of dismissal was not " ‘specifically directed’ at" any alleged shortcoming in the evidence now raised on appeal ( People v. Gray , 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 [1995] ; see People v. Turner , 197 A.D.3d 997, 997, 153 N.Y.S.3d 366 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1061, 154 N.Y.S.3d 643, 176 N.E.3d 679 [2021] ). Nevertheless, " ‘we necessarily review the evidence adduced as to each of the elements of the crimes in the context of our review of defendant's challenge regarding the weight of the evidence’ " ( People v. Stepney , 93 A.D.3d 1297, 1298, 940 N.Y.S.2d 752 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 968, 950 N.Y.S.2d 120, 973 N.E.2d 218 [2012] ).
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] ), 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] ). Where, as here, "witness credibility is of paramount importance to the determination of guilt or innocence, we must give great deference to the jury, given its opportunity to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor" ( People v. Streeter , 118 A.D.3d 1287, 1288, 987 N.Y.S.2d 775 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 1068, 994 N.Y.S.2d 327, 18 N.E.3d 1148 [2014], reconsideration denied 24 N.Y.3d 1047, 998 N.Y.S.2d 317, 23 N.E.3d 160 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. McKay , 197 A.D.3d 992, 993, 153 N.Y.S.3d 347 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1060, 154 N.Y.S.3d 639, 176 N.E.3d 675 [2021] ). Here, the jury was "entitled to credit the testimony of the People's witnesses ... over the testimony of defendant's witness[ ]," and we perceive no reason to disturb the jury's credibility determinations in that regard ( People v. Tetro , 175 A.D.3d 1784, 1788, 109 N.Y.S.3d 776 [4th Dept. 2019] ). Although the victim obviously suffered from some mental health problems, the jury was aware of her history and diagnoses, and there was nothing about the victim's trial testimony that was "manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory" ( People v. Barnes, 158 A.D.3d 1072, 1073, 70 N.Y.S.3d 679 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1011, 78 N.Y.S.3d 281, 102 N.E.3d 1062 [2018] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Further, despite some inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, we conclude that her "testimony was not ‘so inconsistent or unbelievable as to render it incredible as a matter of law’ " ( People v. Lewis, 129 A.D.3d 1546, 1548, 12 N.Y.S.3d 678 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 969, 18 N.Y.S.3d 605, 40 N.E.3d 583 [2015] ; see People v. O'Neill, 169 A.D.3d 1515, 1515-1516, 93 N.Y.S.3d 501 [4th Dept. 2019] ), and any such inconsistencies merely presented issues of credibility for the jury to resolve (see People v. Cross , 174 A.D.3d 1311, 1314-1315, 104 N.Y.S.3d 480 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 950, 110 N.Y.S.3d 640, 134 N.E.3d 639 [2019] ). Finally, the lack of any DNA evidence does not render the verdict against the weight of the evidence (see e.g. People v. Foulkes , 117 A.D.3d 1176, 1176-1177, 986 N.Y.S.2d 634 [3d Dept. 2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 1084, 1 N.Y.S.3d 10, 25 N.E.3d 347 [2014] ; People v. Lozada , 41 A.D.3d 1042, 1043, 839 N.Y.S.2d 275 [3d Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 924, 844 N.Y.S.2d 178, 875 N.E.2d 897 [2007] ), especially in light of the other physical evidence that connected defendant to the crimes in question.