PEOPLE v. DYER (2024)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered December 4, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

In this justification defense case, defendant argues that he was deprived of his constitutional right of confrontation when an autopsy report and related documents were introduced through the testimony of a medical examiner other than the medical examiner who prepared the report (see U.S. Const Amend VI;  Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68–69, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 [2004];  People v. Ortega, ––– N.Y.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.2d ––––, ––– N.E.2d ––––, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 05956, * 1 [2023]).  We agree but find the error harmless for the reason explained below.

The autopsy report bears indicia of formality establishing that it was a “solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact” (Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51, 124 S.Ct. 1354 [internal quotation marks omitted]), here, the cause of the victim's death (see Ortega, ––– N.Y.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.2d ––––, ––– N.E.2d ––––, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 05956, * 3).  These indicia include the document's formal title (Report of Autopsy), accompanied by the seal of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York (OCME), and the nontestifying examiner's signed and dated certification that she had performed an autopsy on the victim's body.  The report was also generated under circumstances which would cause an objective witness to reasonably believe that it would be available for use in a criminal prosecution.  A police officer initiated the process by reporting the matter to OCME, and the autopsy was conducted in connection with an active homicide investigation (see id.;  Garlick v. Lee, 1 F.4th 122, 134 [2d Cir. 2021], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S.Ct. 1189, 212 L.Ed.2d 54 [2022]).

Under the particular circumstances of this case, we find that the error in admitting the report and supporting documents was harmless because the People have proven “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained” (Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 [1967];  see Ortega, ––– N.Y.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.2d ––––, ––– N.E.2d ––––, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 05956, * 4;  see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975]).  The cause of the victim's death was uncontested and was readily inferable from other evidence.  The only issue was justification, whether the homicide was a justified act of self-defense.  To the extent any of the challenged evidence had a bearing on that defense by establishing the injuries caused by defendant's devastating attack, this was cumulative to other evidence of the victim's injuries.  Furthermore, even after excising the disputed evidence, the totality of the evidence refuting defendant's justification defense, including the testimony of neighbors who heard the incident and photographs showing that the victim suffered heavy blows to the back of his head, was overwhelming.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.