Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Albert SANTANA, Defendant-Appellant.
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, one count of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[3] ) and two counts of attempted robbery in the first degree (§§ 110.00, 160.15[2] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in allowing the People to present the testimony of the jailhouse informant's attorney. We reject that contention. The only ground for the alleged inadmissibility of that testimony that is preserved for our review is that it was directed at a collateral issue, and that ground lacks merit (see generally People v. Aska, 91 N.Y.2d 979, 981, 674 N.Y.S.2d 271, 697 N.E.2d 172; People v. Heslop, 48 A.D.3d 190, 196-197, 849 N.Y.S.2d 301, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 935, 862 N.Y.S.2d 342, 892 N.E.2d 408). Even assuming, arguendo, that the remaining grounds advanced by defendant are preserved for our review, we conclude that they are lacking in merit as well. Contrary to defendant's contention, the informant's attorney did not testify that she or any prosecutor believed the informant or his account of defendant's crimes to be credible. Rather, she testified only that, pursuant to his cooperation agreement, the informant was required “to provide truthful cooperation” at defendant's trial in order to receive a downward departure of his federal sentence. Inasmuch as the informant had not yet testified, his attorney could not and, indeed, did not offer any opinion whether the informant had provided such truthful cooperation. We thus conclude that the attorney did not implicitly testify concerning the informant's credibility in violation of the Confrontation Clause or the advocate-witness rule (cf. United States v. Roberts, 618 F.2d 530), nor did her testimony usurp the jury's function to assess the informant's credibility (see People v. Hayes, 226 A.D.2d 1055, 1056, 642 N.Y.S.2d 118 lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 936, 647 N.Y.S.2d 170, 670 N.E.2d 454). Further, defendant raised the issue of the informant's motive for testifying and his credibility, and thus, “the People were properly permitted to elicit the bolstering aspect of the cooperation agreement, i.e., the promise by the [informant] to testify truthfully” (Hayes, 226 A.D.2d at 1055, 642 N.Y.S.2d 118; see People v. Poppo, 292 A.D.2d 859, 860, 738 N.Y.S.2d 915, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 679, 746 N.Y.S.2d 469, 774 N.E.2d 234).
Contrary to defendant's further contention, the prosecutor did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct on summation by vouching for the credibility of the informant. Rather, the prosecutor's comments were a fair response to defense counsel's attacks on the informant's credibility on summation (see People v. Halm, 81 N.Y.2d 819, 821, 595 N.Y.S.2d 380, 611 N.E.2d 281; People v. West, 4 A.D.3d 791, 792, 772 N.Y.S.2d 166). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his remaining contentions with respect to alleged prosecutorial misconduct on summation (see generally People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89), and we decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ). Defendant made only general motions to dismiss at the close of the People's case and at the close of proof and thus failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919; People v. Dennard, 39 A.D.3d 1277, 1278, 833 N.Y.S.2d 831, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 842, 840 N.Y.S.2d 769, 872 N.E.2d 882). In any event, that challenge lacks merit (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Contrary to defendant's further contentions, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally id.), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 03, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)