People v. Burns
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 20, 2014; New York; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made from a judgment by the Cayuga County Court, which convicted the defendant on multiple counts, including three counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, four counts of assault in the second degree, and additional counts of criminal obstruction, criminal mischief, and harassment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment unanimously. The defendant argued that prosecutorial misconduct during summation denied him a fair trial; however, many of these claims were unpreserved due to lack of timely objection. The court declined to review these unpreserved issues but assessed preserved claims, concluding that any improper remarks were not sufficiently egregious to warrant a new trial. Additionally, the court rejected the defendant's claim that the County Court erred by excluding testimony about the victim's psychiatric history, noting that some inquiries would have led to inadmissible hearsay and others attempted to impeach the victim on irrelevant matters. The defendant also contested the legal sufficiency of the evidence regarding the classification of weapons as dangerous instruments. The court found sufficient evidence that both a door and a knife were used in a manner that qualified them as dangerous instruments, thereby upholding the convictions. Finally, the court dismissed the defendant's argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, affirming the jury's decision based on the presented evidence. Defendant's argument regarding the vagueness of the first two counts of the indictment was not preserved for review, and the court chose not to exercise discretion to consider it for justice's sake. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were rejected, as the failure to request a Huntley hearing was deemed inconsequential due to the lack of evidence that such a hearing would have led to the suppression of the defendant's videotaped confession. The request to substitute his assigned attorney was denied because the defendant did not demonstrate good cause for the change. Additionally, the court properly denied the request to proceed pro se, as the request was ambiguous. By not moving to dismiss the indictment within the statutory five-day period based on the right to testify before the grand jury, the defendant waived that right, rendering his argument meritless. The court found the sentence to be appropriate and determined the defendant's other claims to be without merit.