People v. Crews

Summary

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department unanimously affirmed Chauncey M. Crews's judgment of conviction for rape in the first degree and criminal sexual act in the first degree. The court rejected challenges concerning discovery compliance and speedy trial rights, sanctions for delayed disclosure of body-worn camera footage, Molineux evidence, weight of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, the order of protection, and sentence severity, while directing correction of the certificate of disposition and sentencing form to specify the statutory subdivision for the criminal sexual act conviction.

Holdings

1. The People complied with their discovery obligations because they established due diligence in obtaining and disclosing the body-worn-camera footage; therefore, the certificates of compliance were not invalid and dismissal of the indictment under CPL 30.30 was unwarranted.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by precluding the People from relying on the late-disclosed body-worn-camera footage during their case-in-chief rather than dismissing the indictment or precluding the complainant's testimony.
3. Defendant's challenges to the substantive Molineux ruling, the scope of the complainant's testimony, and the absence of a limiting instruction were unpreserved, and the court declined to review them in the interest of justice.
4. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
5. Defendant received meaningful representation and was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
6. The certificate of disposition and uniform sentence and commitment form must be amended to state that defendant was convicted of criminal sexual act in the first degree under Penal Law former § 130.50 (1).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the People's delayed disclosure of body-worn-camera footage required striking the certificates of compliance and dismissal of the indictment on statutory speedy-trial grounds.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by precluding the People from using the late-disclosed footage in their case-in-chief rather than dismissing the indictment or precluding the complainant's testimony.
3. Whether defendant's challenges to the Molineux ruling, the scope of the complainant's testimony, and the absence of a limiting instruction were preserved for appellate review.
4. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
5. Whether defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to request certain limiting and adverse-inference instructions.
6. Whether the order of protection and sentence were invalid or unduly harsh or severe.
7. Whether the certificate of disposition and uniform sentence and commitment form required correction to identify the subdivision of the criminal-sexual-act conviction.

Disposition

affirmed