PEOPLE v. CAMACHO (2019)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered December 3, 2010, as amended January 11, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his legal sufficiency claims regarding the elements of criminal possession of stolen property, or his related claim regarding the prosecutor's summation, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.  As an alternative holding, we reject them on the merits.  We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ).  The evidence, including defendant's implausible and conflicting explanations, amply supported inferences that defendant knew that a car in his possession was stolen (see People v. Zorcik, 67 N.Y.2d 670, 671, 499 N.Y.S.2d 674, 490 N.E.2d 541 [1986] ), and that he intended to permanently deprive the car's owner of his property (see People v. Kirnon, 39 A.D.2d 666, 667, 332 N.Y.S.2d 74 [1972], affd 31 N.Y.2d 877, 340 N.Y.S.2d 183, 292 N.E.2d 319 [1972] ).

Defendant's challenge to the court's response to a jury note is also unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.  As an alternative holding, we find that the court provided a meaningful response (see People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 449 N.Y.S.2d 168, 434 N.E.2d 237 [1982], cert denied 459 U.S. 847, 103 S.Ct. 104, 74 L.Ed.2d 93 [1982] ) and that the response could not have caused any prejudice in light of the evidence presented at trial.

While portions of the courts Sandoval ruling, specifically the admission of two stale felony convictions (entered in excess of 25 years prior) and the underlying facts of all 13 convictions (including the inflammatory details of a conviction for lewd public behavior) constituted an abuse of discretion, any error in the ruling is harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975] ).