PEOPLE v. TROVATO (2009)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered January 29, 2008, convicting her of murder in the second degree and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that two civilians, one of whom was her aunt, acted as agents of the police when they obtained statements from her in violation of her right to counsel is without merit. With respect to recordings of telephone calls made by the defendant's aunt, the conduct of the defendant's aunt was not “so pervaded by governmental involvement that it los[t] its character as [private conduct] and invoke[d] the full panoply of constitutional protections” (People v. Ray, 65 N.Y.2d 282, 286, 491 N.Y.S.2d 283, 480 N.E.2d 1065). Instead, the telephone calls were made by a person acting privately, and did not “fall within the ambit of this exclusionary rule” (People v. Velasquez, 68 N.Y.2d 533, 537, 510 N.Y.S.2d 833, 503 N.E.2d 481). The defendant's aunt was not acting “at the instigation or under the supervision of the police” in providing the recordings of the telephone calls (People v. Jean, 13 A.D.3d 466, 467, 786 N.Y.S.2d 564; see People v. Carvalho, 60 A.D.3d 1394, 1395, 876 N.Y.S.2d 269; People v. Johnson, 303 A.D.2d 830, 832-834, 758 N.Y.S.2d 687; People v. Lewis, 273 A.D.2d 254, 709 N.Y.S.2d 572). The recordings were unsolicited by the police, and were made without “promise or inducement” by the police (People v. Melendez, 285 A.D.2d 819, 822, 727 N.Y.S.2d 773).

The other civilian who the defendant contends acted as an agent of the police did not testify at the trial, and no evidence that may have been obtained from her by the police was offered in evidence. Thus, there was no violation of the defendant's right to counsel (cf. People v. Burchard, 20 A.D.3d 818, 820, 799 N.Y.S.2d 607).

The defendant failed to show that her trial counsel's tactics, which opened the door to the admission of certain evidence that had been previously precluded by the County Court, lacked legitimate strategic purposes (see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213), and that the risks of opening the door to such evidence outweighed its tactical advantages (see People v. Pennington, 27 A.D.3d 269, 270, 811 N.Y.S.2d 36; People v. Taylor, 300 A.D.2d 746, 748, 751 N.Y.S.2d 662; People v. Silvestre, 279 A.D.2d 364, 365, 719 N.Y.S.2d 248). The fact that trial counsel's tactics were unsuccessful does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563, 565, 721 N.Y.S.2d 577, 744 N.E.2d 112, cert. denied 547 U.S. 1040, 126 S.Ct. 1622, 164 L.Ed.2d 334; People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400; People v. Joseph, 201 A.D.2d 506, 607 N.Y.S.2d 697). Moreover, the defendant's contention that her trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to reconsider a psychiatric defense which the defendant had specifically withdrawn on the record is without merit (see People v. Thomas, 247 A.D.2d 284, 669 N.Y.S.2d 38; see also People v. Petrovich, 87 N.Y.2d 961, 641 N.Y.S.2d 592, 664 N.E.2d 503, cert. denied 532 U.S. 981, 121 S.Ct. 1623, 149 L.Ed.2d 485; People v. Constas, 59 A.D.3d 729, 729-730, 875 N.Y.S.2d 103). Viewing the record as a whole, we find that the defendant received meaningful representation (see People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d at 565, 721 N.Y.S.2d 577, 744 N.E.2d 112; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; People v. Orcutt, 49 A.D.3d 1082, 1087, 854 N.Y.S.2d 247).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly refused to charge the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. The defendant's behavior “immediately before and after the killing was inconsistent with the loss of control associated with the affirmative defense” (People v. Murden, 190 A.D.2d 822, 822, 593 N.Y.S.2d 837, cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 128 S.Ct. 1083, 169 L.Ed.2d 823). The defendant failed to establish both the subjective and objective elements of the defense of extreme emotional disturbance (see People v. Smith, 1 N.Y.3d 610, 612, 776 N.Y.S.2d 198, 808 N.E.2d 333; People v. Roche, 98 N.Y.2d 70, 75-77, 745 N.Y.S.2d 775, 772 N.E.2d 1133; People v. Harris, 95 N.Y.2d 316, 318-320, 717 N.Y.S.2d 82, 740 N.E.2d 227). The County Court also correctly declined to charge manslaughter in the first degree as a lesser-included offense of murder in the second degree, as no reasonable view of the evidence warranted such a charge (see People v. Butler, 84 N.Y.2d 627, 633-634, 620 N.Y.S.2d 775, 644 N.E.2d 1331; People v. Ramsey, 59 A.D.3d 1046, 1047, 872 N.Y.S.2d 789; People v. Tyler, 43 A.D.3d 633, 634, 841 N.Y.S.2d 193; People v. Bien, 1 A.D.3d 442, 443, 766 N.Y.S.2d 895; People v. Collins, 290 A.D.2d 457, 458, 736 N.Y.S.2d 109).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274, 280, 425 N.Y.S.2d 288, 401 N.E.2d 398; People v. Caston, 60 A.D.3d 1147, 1149, 874 N.Y.S.2d 623; People v. Ostrander, 46 A.D.3d 1217, 1218, 847 N.Y.S.2d 791).

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on the charge of burglary in the second degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).