PEOPLE v. MASON (2018)

The testimony of an analyst from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner linking defendant's DNA to a sample found on a firearm recovered from the crime scene did not violate defendant's right of confrontation. The analyst's testimony amply established that she used her own “independent analysis of the raw data” to make the comparison, and the analysis was not merely “a conduit for the conclusions of others” (People v. John, 27 N.Y.3d 294, 315, 33 N.Y.S.3d 88, 52 N.E.3d 1114 [2016]; People v. Rodriguez, 153 A.D.3d 235, 246–247, 59 N.Y.S.3d 337 [1st Dept. 2017], affd on other grounds 31 N.Y.3d 1067, 77 N.Y.S.3d 336, 101 N.E.3d 977 [2018] ).

The testimony of the detective identifying defendant as one of the men depicted in surveillance videos and photographs provides no basis for reversal in light of the other evidence in this case (see People v. Boyd, 151 A.D.3d 641, 641, 58 N.Y.S.3d 43 [1st Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1124, 64 N.Y.S.3d 673, 86 N.E.3d 565 [2017] ).

The court properly denied defendant's request to preclude several recorded phone calls he made from jail prior to trial. “Defendant impliedly consented to the recording of the call(s) based on his receipt of multiple forms of notice that his calls would be recorded, and he was not entitled to separate notice that the calls might be subpoenaed by prosecutors” (People v. Holmes, 162 A.D.3d 585, 586, 80 N.Y.S.3d 252 [1st Dept. 2018] ). Defendant abandoned his request for a voluntariness charge as to the phone calls (see People v. Graves, 85 N.Y.2d 1024, 1027, 630 N.Y.S.2d 972, 654 N.E.2d 1220 [1995] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.