People v. Fernandez

903 N.Y.S.2d 176

74 A.D.3d 1379

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Marcos A. FERNANDEZ, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

June 3, 2010.

Cynthia Feathers, Saratoga Springs, for appellant.

Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, J.P., MALONE JR., KAVANAGH, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.

MALONE JR., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Teresi, J.), rendered June 1, 2009, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child.

Between August 2005 and December 2005, defendant (born in 1987) allegedly engaged in sexual conduct with the complainant (born in 1997), a member of his family, on at least three occasions. The complainant did not reveal this until 2008, at which time defendant was charged with course of sexual conduct against a child in the first and second degrees, rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first and second degrees and endangering the welfare of a child. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child. Defendant unsuccessfully moved to set aside the verdict and was then sentenced to an aggregate jail term of four months to be followed by 10 years of probation.¹ Defendant appeals.

Initially, we agree with defendant that count 5 of the indictment, charging him with sexual abuse in the second degree ( see Penal Law § 130.60 [2] ), is an inclusory concurrent count of the one charging him with sexual abuse in the first degree ( see Penal Law § 130.65[3]; see also CPL 1.20 [37]; 300.40[3][b] ). Accordingly, defendant's conviction of sexual abuse in the second degree must be reversed and that count dismissed ( see People v. Harp, 20 A.D.3d 672, 674, 798 N.Y.S.2d 235 [2005], lv. denied5 N.Y.3d 852, 806 N.Y.S.2d 172, 840 N.E.2d 141 [2005] ).

Next, while we find that the evidence presented was legally sufficient to support the remaining convictions, we agree with defendant that County Court improperly precluded him from presenting testimony of two family members regarding the complainant's reputation in their family for untruthfulness. Defendant has the absolute "right to present to the jury a witness with personal knowledge of complainant['s] bad reputation for truthfulness and veracity in the community" ( People v. Hanley, 5 N.Y.3d 108, 112, 800 N.Y.S.2d 105, 833 N.E.2d 248 [2005]; see People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 290, 464 N.Y.S.2d 458, 451 N.E.2d 216 [1983]; People v. Bouton, 50 N.Y.2d 130, 138-140, 428 N.Y.S.2d 218, 405 N.E.2d 699 [1980] ). Here, the court precluded reputation testimony by Juan Collazo on the basis that defense counsel had failed to lay a proper foundation for such. However, our review of the record reveals that defense counsel questioned Collazo about his relation to bothdefendant and the complainant, how long he had known the complainant, how large their extended family was and how often they all gathered together. Collazo also testified that, when the extended family gathered, the complainant's reputation was discussed. In our view, this testimony provided an adequate foundation for the reputation testimony. In addition, the court improperly precluded reputation testimony by Ramona Fernandez on the basis that the family was not a community for purposes of reputation testimony.² However, the record here supports a finding that, within the extended family at issue, the members had the requisite " quantity and quality" of contact with the young complainant as to be considered her community ( People v. Bouton, 50 N.Y.2d at 139, 428 N.Y.S.2d 218, 405 N.E.2d 699). "[T]he evidence ... demonstrate[d] a reputation rather than merely 'individual and independent dealings' " ( id. at 139-140, 428 N.Y.S.2d 218, 405 N.E.2d 699, quoting People v. Colantone, 243 N.Y. 134, 139, 152 N.E. 700 [1926] ). Any purported bias of the family members could have been explored and developed by the prosecutor, and the court's refusal to permit the testimony denied the jury the opportunity to perform its function in fully assessing the credibility of the complainant. This was particularly damaging to defendant considering that the only evidence presented to establish that the abuse actually occurred was the complainant's testimony and, therefore, her "credibility was the central issue" ( People v. Streitferdt, 169 A.D.2d 171, 175, 572 N.Y.S.2d 893 [1991], lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 1015, 575 N.Y.S.2d 823, 581 N.E.2d 1069 [1991] ). Under these circumstances, the error in precluding reputation testimony cannot be considered harmless.

In light of the foregoing, we need not address defendant's remaining contentions.

KAVANAGH and GARRY, JJ., concur.

McCARTHY, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

We agree with the majority that defendant's conviction of sexual abuse in the second degree must be reversed and that count dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count. We also agree that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the remaining convictions. We disagree, however, with the majority's conclusion that County Court erred in precluding defendant from presenting reputation evidence.We would not remit for a new trial, but would instead affirm the convictions of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child.

Evidence of a key witness's reputation for untruthfulness is admissible as a matter of right if the proper foundation hasbeen laid ( see People v. Hanley, 5 N.Y.3d 108, 114, 800 N.Y.S.2d 105, 833 N.E.2d 248 [2005] ). The determination as to whether particular evidence is admissible, including whether a proper foundation has been laid, rests within the trial court's sound discretion ( see People v. Welch, 71 A.D.3d 1329, 1331, 897 N.Y.S.2d 546 [2010]; People v. Morehouse, 5 A.D.3d 925, 928-929, 774 N.Y.S.2d 100 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 644, 782 N.Y.S.2d 416, 816 N.E.2d 206 [2004]; People v. Wemette, 285 A.D.2d 729, 730, 728 N.Y.S.2d 805 [2001], lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 689, 738 N.Y.S.2d 305, 764 N.E.2d 409 [2001]; see also United States v. Augello, 452 F.2d 1135, 1140 [2d Cir.1971], cert. denied 406 U.S. 922, 92 S.Ct. 1787, 32 L.Ed.2d 122 [1972], 409 U.S. 859, 93 S.Ct. 145, 34 L.Ed.2d 105 [1972] ). We will disturb the trial court's evidentiary rulings only if the court abused its discretion in admitting or precluding evidence ( see People v. Roberts, 66 A.D.3d 1135, 1137, 887 N.Y.S.2d 326 [2009]; see also Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 480, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 [1948] ).

To establish a foundation to admit testimony that a key witness has a reputation for untruthfulness in the community, the proponent must show that the character witness is a member of the same community, has been a member of that community for a substantial period of time, knows others in the community who also know the key witness, has heard those other people discuss the key witness and knows from those discussions the key witness's reputation for untruthfulness ( see 1-5 Jonakait, Baer, Jones & Imwinkelreid, New York Evidentiary Foundations, ch. 5, part 2, § F[2] [2d ed. rev. 2009]; see also Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. at 478, 69 S.Ct. 213). Underlying these foundational elements is the requirement that the proponent of the testimony identify a sufficiently large community that includes the key witness and the character witness as members. "A reputation may grow wherever an individual's associations are of such quantity and quality as to permit him [or her] to be personally observed by a sufficient number of individuals to give reasonable assurance of reliability. In short, the evidence must demonstrate a reputation rather than merely 'individual and independent dealings' " ( People v. Bouton, 50 N.Y.2d 130, 139-140, 428 N.Y.S.2d 218, 405 N.E.2d 699 [1980] [citations omitted], quoting People v. Colantone, 243 N.Y. 134, 139, 152 N.E. 700 [1926] ).

We cannot say that County Court abused its discretion in ruling that the foundational testimony of the proposed character witnesses was insufficient to allow admission of reputation evidence in this case. When asked if other people in her family also knew the victim, Ramona Fernandez testified, "Yes, all my family." When asked to clarify that answer, she responded, "And friends, my sisters and my nieces, my nieces, friends of the family." Defense counsel asked whether Fernandez had...