Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
HUNTSMAN, CRAIG A., PEOPLE v
Citation: Not availableDocket: KA 08-02239
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; June 8, 2012; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, modified a judgment from the Ontario County Court that convicted Craig A. Huntsman on multiple charges, including criminal mischief, aggravated harassment, burglary, grand larceny, and criminal contempt. The court reduced Huntsman's conviction for grand larceny from fourth degree to petit larceny and for criminal contempt from first degree to second degree, vacating the sentences associated with those counts. The matter was remitted for sentencing on the modified charges. Huntsman contended that prosecutorial misconduct by Assistant District Attorney Jeffrey L. Taylor warranted reversal. Although Huntsman's defense did not object to the alleged misconduct at trial, the court chose to address the issue in the interest of justice, noting a pattern of misconduct by Taylor in past cases. However, the court determined that this misconduct did not compromise the fairness of Huntsman's trial. The court also rejected Huntsman's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding that his defense attorney provided meaningful representation, investigated allegations thoroughly, and successfully defended against questionable evidence, resulting in acquittals on three charges. Additionally, the court found error in the admission of Huntsman's cell phone records as evidence, ruling they were not self-authenticating under relevant legal standards. The admission of cell phone records was deemed improper due to a lack of foundational evidence under CPLR 4518 (a), but any resulting error was considered harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt (People v Ramos; People v Crimmins). The defendant did not preserve his argument regarding the admissibility of vehicle repair documentation for review (People v Bell) and the court chose not to address it in the interest of justice. Regarding the second count of criminal mischief (Penal Law § 145.10), the defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence concerning damage exceeding $1,500, as he did not raise it in his dismissal motion (People v Culver; People v Chacon). The court rejected further claims that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and that a lesser included offense instruction was warranted, finding no reasonable evidence to support a lower damage threshold. For counts 11 and 12, related to grand larceny and criminal contempt, the defendant argued that the evidence of item value was insufficient. While it was acknowledged that he may have failed to preserve these contentions, the court opted to address them in the interest of justice. The evidence presented, primarily the complainant's vague estimates, was found inadequate to support the larceny conviction, leading to a reduction to petit larceny. The matter was remitted for sentencing on this conviction. For count 12, the evidence regarding damage to the residence was similarly insufficient, resulting in a reduction to criminal contempt in the second degree, which does not require proof of value. The case was also remitted for sentencing on this conviction.