People v. Brown

Summary

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed David Brown's conviction for second-degree burglary on an accessorial-liability theory. The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient and supported the verdict under the weight-of-the-evidence standard, despite the absence of proof that Brown physically entered the apartment. The court also upheld admission of recorded jail telephone calls and rejected unpreserved prosecutorial-misconduct and ineffective-assistance claims.

Holdings

1. The evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's criminal liability for second-degree burglary as an accessory, including the requisite intent to steal, even though no evidence showed that defendant physically entered the apartment.
2. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
3. The recorded telephone calls were properly admitted because defendant was warned that calls were subject to monitoring and recording and therefore had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their contents.
4. Defendant's prosecutorial-misconduct claim was unpreserved because trial counsel did not object. In the alternative, the challenged comments were fair comment on the evidence, and any improper remarks were not sufficiently pervasive or flagrant to require reversal.
5. Defendant's ineffective-assistance claim failed because objections to the challenged summation comments would have had little or no chance of success.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support defendant's conviction for second-degree burglary on an accessorial-liability theory despite the absence of proof that defendant physically entered the apartment.
2. Whether the verdict finding defendant guilty of second-degree burglary was against the weight of the evidence.
3. Whether recorded telephone calls defendant made from jail were admissible when the recording system warned that calls were subject to monitoring and recording.
4. Whether the prosecutor's summation comments constituted prosecutorial misconduct requiring reversal despite the absence of a trial objection.
5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's summation comments.

Disposition

affirmed