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. Todd BRANHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered June 8, 2006, 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.
The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding defendant from introducing a prosecution witness's testimony about an alleged declaration against penal interest made by a codefendant (see People v. Settles, 46 N.Y.2d 154, 167-170, 412 N.Y.S.2d 874, 385 N.E.2d 612 [1978] ). In this felony murder case, the People's evidence established that defendant personally committed the homicidal act while aided by two codefendants, each of whom pleaded guilty. Defendant sought to introduce a vague statement made by one of the codefendants that contained an indirect suggestion that this codefendant, rather than defendant, may have been the person who shot the victim.
Unavailability of the declarant is a prerequisite for admissibility of a declaration against penal interest (id. at 167, 412 N.Y.S.2d 874, 385 N.E.2d 612). Under the circumstances of the case, it cannot be assumed that the codefendant's testimony was unavailable to defendant by virtue of the codefendant's Fifth Amendment privilege. When he pleaded guilty shortly before defendant's trial, the codefendant agreed to testify for the prosecution. However, the codefendant was not called as a witness by either side at defendant's trial, and he never invoked his right against self-incrimination. There is no indication in the record that the codefendant either personally, or through his attorney, ever expressed an intent to invoke his privilege; instead, the codefendant's attorney told defendant's attorney that the codefendant would deny making the statement at issue and would “absolutely” testify that it was defendant who fired the fatal shot. The prospect that a witness's testimony would be damaging does not satisfy the requirement of unavailability. The statement also fell far short of satisfying the reliability requirement for introduction of a declaration against penal interest (see People v. Shortridge, 65 N.Y.2d 309, 491 N.Y.S.2d 298, 480 N.E.2d 1080 [1985] ).
The court properly rejected defendant's argument that his constitutional right to present a defense required admission of the declaration (see Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 [1973]; People v. Robinson, 89 N.Y.2d 648, 654, 657 N.Y.S.2d 575, 679 N.E.2d 1055 [1997]; People v. Burns, 18 A.D.3d 397, 795 N.Y.S.2d 574 [2005], affd. 6 N.Y.3d 793, 811 N.Y.S.2d 297, 844 N.E.2d 751 [2006] ). This evidence was neither reliable nor critical to establish any defense. To establish the affirmative defense to felony murder set forth in Penal Law § 125.25(3), defendant would have had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not commit the homicidal act, as well as proving a series of other elements. There is no reason to believe that the cryptic declaration at issue would have had any likelihood of establishing the affirmative defense, or undermining, in any other manner, the evidence establishing that defendant committed felony murder. In any event, in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, any error in excluding the declaration was harmless under the standards for both constitutional and nonconstitutional error (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975] ).
Defendant's challenges to the People's introduction of an excited utterance are without merit (see People v. Buie, 86 N.Y.2d 501, 506, 634 N.Y.S.2d 415, 658 N.E.2d 192 [1995]; People v. Caviness, 38 N.Y.2d 227, 232, 379 N.Y.S.2d 695, 342 N.E.2d 496 [1975] ).
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: February 19, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)