People v. Boop
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; June 13, 2014; New York; State Appellate Court
Appeal from the Monroe County Court's judgment dated October 7, 2009, which convicted the defendant on multiple counts, including two counts of first-degree vehicular manslaughter and two counts of driving while intoxicated. The conviction stemmed from an incident where the defendant, while intoxicated, drove off the road and struck a tree, resulting in the death of a front seat passenger. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, noting that the defendant did not preserve his argument regarding the prosecutor's use of his postarrest silence due to a lack of objection at trial. Any error related to this testimony was deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the defendant challenged the admission of photographs of the tree where the accident occurred, arguing they improperly appealed to the jurors' emotions because of flowers at the site. However, the court found that the issue was preserved for appeal since defense counsel objected to the photographs based on their emotional impact. Ultimately, the court ruled that the photographs were admissible as they served to illustrate and corroborate relevant evidence rather than solely evoking juror sympathy. Photographs presented in court demonstrated the relationship between the tree, the roadway, and their visibility, which were crucial for the jury's determination of whether the defendant was driving intoxicated. The defendant did not object to the court's decision to turn off an overhead projector displaying certain evidence, thereby forfeiting any claim that this action violated his right to a public trial. The court's actions did not infringe upon this right since a laptop screen remained visible to the public. Additionally, the court's measures to maintain order during sensitive testimony from the Medical Examiner did not provide grounds to overturn the conviction. The defendant's argument that he was denied the right to present a defense due to restrictions on cross-examining the Medical Examiner was rejected, as the proposed questioning lacked a sufficient foundation and would have been speculative. The court allowed the defendant ample opportunity to explore relevant topics. Claims of judicial bias against a defense witness were not preserved for review and were found to lack merit, as the court did not denigrate the witness. Finally, the defendant waived any objections related to the jurors' use of a verdict sheet during summations and deliberations, having consented to these procedures during the trial.