People v. Woodard

2023 NY Slip Op 02207

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. DERRICK WOODARD, ALSO KNOWN AS "WOOD," DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

No. 169 KA 17-00339

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

April 28, 2023

MARK D. FUNK, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KATHLEEN P. REARDON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (JODI A. DANZIG OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Alex R Renzi, J.), rendered January 25, 2017. The appeal was held by this Court by order entered November 12, 2021, decision was reserved and the matter was remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings (199 A.D.3d 1377 [4th Dept 2021]). The proceedings were held and completed.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum In this prosecution arising from an investigation into a multi-level drug sales operation, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a joint jury trial with three codefendants, of conspiracy in the second degree (Penal Law § 105.15), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.39 [1]), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1]). We previously held the case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing on defendant's motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (2) on the ground of misconduct during jury deliberations, which had been summarily denied by the court, and we also rejected defendant's remaining contentions (People v Woodard, 199 A.D.3d 1377 [4th Dept 2021]). Defendant's motion was supported by sworn allegations, including the affidavits of two jurors indicating that certain other jurors may have had undisclosed preexisting prejudices against people of defendant's race that may have affected defendant's substantial right to an impartial jury and fair trial (id. at 1380). Upon remittal, the court conducted a hearing during which all 12 jurors testified, and thereafter denied the motion.

As relevant here, a court may, upon a motion of the defendant, set aside the verdict on the ground "[t]hat during the trial there occurred, out of the presence of the court, improper conduct by a juror,... which may have affected a substantial right of the defendant and which was not known to the defendant prior to the rendition of the verdict" (CPL 330.30 [2]). "Generally, a jury verdict should not be impeached, absent special circumstances, by affidavit or testimony of jurors after their verdict is publicly returned, [which is] a rule designed to protect jurors from being harassed after verdict and to ensure the secure foundation of the verdict" (Woodard, 199 A.D.3d at 1379 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Estella, 68 A.D.3d 1155, 1157 [3d Dept 2009]; People v Rukaj, 123 A.D.2d 277, 280 [1st Dept 1986]). Nonetheless, setting aside the verdict "is warranted where a juror had an undisclosed preexisting prejudice that would have resulted in his or her disqualification if it had been revealed during voir dire, such as an undisclosed, pretrial opinion of guilt against the defendant" (People v Rivera, 304 A.D.2d 841, 842 [2d Dept 2003]; see People v Leonti, 262 NY 256, 258 [1933]; Estella, 68 A.D.3d at 1157; Rukaj, 123 A.D.2d at 280-281). Upon a hearing pursuant to CPL 330.30, "the defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence every fact essential to support the motion" (CPL 330.40 [2] [g]). "The trial court is invested with discretion and posttrial fact-finding powers to ascertain and determine whether the activity... constituted misconduct and whether the verdict should be set aside and a new trial ordered" (People v Maragh, 94 N.Y.2d 569, 574 [2000]).

We reject defendant's contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to set aside the verdict. Here, upon our review of the record, we conclude that" '[t]here is no basis to disturb the court's fact-findings and credibility determinations, which are entitled to great deference on appeal'" (People v Dizak, 93 A.D.3d 1182, 1185 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 972 [2012], reconsideration denied 20 N.Y.3d 932 [2012]; see People v Blunt, 187 A.D.3d 1646, 1647 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 970 [2020]). The jurors, including the two who had initially complained shortly after the verdict were unanimous in their testimony at the hearing that, contrary to the allegation in the affidavit of one of the initially complaining jurors, none of them had heard a racial...