Opinion
2012-12-13
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Arteamus R. WELLS, Appellant.
Paul J. Connolly, Delmar, for appellant. Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Jeremy V. Murray of counsel), for respondent.
Paul J. Connolly, Delmar, for appellant. Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Jeremy V. Murray of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MERCURE, J.P., SPAIN, STEIN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.
McCARTHY, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered May 19, 2011, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of murder in the second degree.
Defendant killed his former girlfriend by choking her with his hands, stabbing her with scissors and strangling her by wrapping a lamp cord around her neck. He confessed to numerous individuals, including several police officers, that he killed the victim. In light of defendant's statements and the other available evidence, the only apparent defense to the murder charge was the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (hereinafter EED) ( seePenal Law § 125.25[1][a] ). During jury selection, County Court inquired whether defense counsel had filed a notice of intent to present psychiatric evidence ( seeCPL 250.10[2] ). Counsel responded that he did not intend to offer psychiatric evidence. In his opening statement, counsel raised the EED defense and told the jury that defendant was on an “ incredible journey of self-destruction that's insightful as to his state of mind” and his “emotional state.” At a colloquy during trial, the prosecutor cited People v. Diaz, 15 N.Y.3d 40, 904 N.Y.S.2d 343, 930 N.E.2d 264 [2010], noting that defendant had not filed a notice of intent. Counsel responded that he was not planning to offer any psychiatric evidence, but he was planning to offer evidence of EED. During another colloquy, after counsel stated that he anticipated that defendant would testify about EED, the court encouraged both counsel to thoroughly review Diaz and quoted a portion of that decision that read, “Of course, a defendant can choose to testify in his own defense to explain his actions without triggering the notice requirement of CPL 250.10(2), but he would not be entitled to a jury instruction on extreme emotional disturbance pursuant to Penal Law § 125.25(1)(a)” ( People v. Diaz, 15 N.Y.3d at 47, 904 N.Y.S.2d 343, 930 N.E.2d 264).
EED is an affirmative defense that reduces a charge of intentional murder in the second degree to manslaughter in the first degree if the defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she acted under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance ( seePenal Law § 125.25[1][a]; People v. Roche, 98 N.Y.2d 70, 75, 745 N.Y.S.2d 775, 772 N.E.2d 1133 [2002] ).
Counsel never gave notice of intent. Defendant testified at trial, although he barely addressed the circumstances surrounding the time of the murder itself. At the charge conference after the proof was closed, defense counsel requested an EED defense charge. County Court denied the request on two grounds—lack of notice and lack of proof to support the charge. The jury convicted defendant of the sole count, murder in the second degree, and the court sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison. Defendant appeals.
Counsel erred in failing to give notice of intent to offer psychiatric evidence. CPL 250.10 provides that a court permit late service of a notice of intent, in the interest of justice and for good cause shown, up until the close of the evidence ( seeCPL 250.10[2] ). The prosecutor provided the citation for a recent Court of Appeals case addressing the situation, and County Court urged counsel to study the case and quoted an applicable sentence, all prior to the close of the evidence. As made clear in Diaz, the term “psychiatric evidence” as used in CPL 250.10 is “broadly construed to encompass ‘any’ mental health evidence offered by a defendant, includ[ing] lay testimony,”even testimony from the defendant himself or herself ( People v. Diaz, 15 N.Y.3d at 47, 904 N.Y.S.2d 343, 930 N.E.2d 264). Despite this recent, binding, applicable case law that was pointed out to counsel multiple times during the trial, when he still could have provided late notice of his intent to offer defendant's testimony in support of an EED defense, counsel did not seek to provide notice but still sought an EED defense charge after the proof was closed.
Prior to trial, defendant was examined by a mental health expert. Because defendant chose not to call this expert as a witnessor introduce the expert report as evidence at trial, defendant was only required to disclose the expert's report to the People if he filed a notice of intent to offer psychiatric evidence ( seeCPL 240.30[1][a] ). While counsel may have wanted to avoid disclosing that report to the People ( seeCPL 240.30[1] [a] ), and opening defendant up to an examination by an expert selected by the People ( seeCPL 250.10[3] ), counsel's method of doing so effectively prevented defendant from obtaining an EED defense charge even though EED was the only viable defense. In fact, that was the defense that counsel specifically pursued from his opening statement through the close of proof, yet his actions undermined his ability to have the jury consider it. A single error can constitute ineffective assistance if a defendant demonstrates “that the error was ‘so egregious and prejudicial’ as to deprive defendant of a fair trial” ( People v. Cummings, 16 N.Y.3d 784, 785, 919 N.Y.S.2d 500, 944 N.E.2d 1139 [2011],cert. denied––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 203, 181 L.Ed.2d 108 [2011], quoting People v. Turner, 5 N.Y.3d 476, 480, 806 N.Y.S.2d 154, 840 N.E.2d 123 [2005] ). Counsel erred by either lacking familiarity with or understanding of the Diaz case, or failing to follow its guidance without any legitimate explanation. The question then becomes whether this error rendered his assistance ineffective.
The People contend that counsel's failure to provide notice of intent does not require reversal because County Court also denied the request for an EED defense charge on an alternate basis, namely the lack of proof regarding EED. To support the defense, defendant had to show that at the time of the homicide he acted under the influence of EED and that there was a reasonable explanation for that disturbance ( see People v. Roche, 98 N.Y.2d 70, 75–76, 745 N.Y.S.2d 775, 772 N.E.2d 1133 [2002];see also People v. Smith, 1 N.Y.3d 610, 612, 776 N.Y.S.2d 198, 808 N.E.2d 333 [2004] ). EED is a “mental infirmity not rising to the level of insanity ..., typically manifested by a loss of self-control” ( People v. Roche, 98 N.Y.2d at 75, 745 N.Y.S.2d 775, 772 N.E.2d 1133;see People v. Harris, 95 N.Y.2d 316, 319, 717 N.Y.S.2d 82, 740 N.E.2d 227 [2000] ). Action influenced by EED need not be spontaneous, but may be a significant mental trauma that “has affected a defendant's mind for a substantial period of time, simmering in the unknowing subconscious and then inexplicably coming to the fore” ( People v. Patterson, 39 N.Y.2d 288, 303, 383 N.Y.S.2d 573, 347 N.E.2d 898 [1976],affd. 432 U.S. 197, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 [1977];see People v. Casassa, 49 N.Y.2d 668, 676, 427 N.Y.S.2d 769, 404 N.E.2d 1310 [1980],cert. denied449 U.S. 842, 101 S.Ct. 122, 66 L.Ed.2d 50 [1980] ). To be entitled to an EED defense jury charge, defendant had to submit “evidence sufficient for a jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the elements of this affirmative defense were established” ( People v. Walker, 64 N.Y.2d 741, 743, 485 N.Y.S.2d 978, 475 N.E.2d 445 [1984] ). When considering if the EED defense should have been charged to the jury, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to defendant ( see People v. Harris, 95 N.Y.2d at 320, 717 N.Y.S.2d 82, 740 N.E.2d 227).
Defendant and another witness testified that on the night before he attacked the victim, defendant learned that she was telling others that she no longer had romantic feelings for him. Defendant was also upset because the victim was pregnant, likely by another man, and she had apparently not responded appropriately when his apartment was burglarized and his belongings were stolen. Although defendant declined to testify regarding the circumstances of the killing itself on direct examination, he did testify that after “I did what I did ... I called my uncle in Atlanta. I was still in shock.” He then said that he fell asleep and “I thought it was a dream when I woke up,” “I really don't really understand how it happened and why it happened. I just—it just happened.” When he was asked on cross-examination whether he wrapped the lamp cord around the victim's neck, defendant replied, “I blanked out. I don't remember none of that.”
In the written statement that defendant provided to police, he mentioned calling his uncle and sleeping after the call, but did not mention being in shock, thinking it was a dream or not understanding how it happened. In the written statement, defendant said that he thought about killing the victim about seven hours before the murder and that he had thought about killing her “for a couple of days.” He said that he and the victim went to bed, but defendant “sat up waiting” and decided to wait until 4:00 a.m. to kill her because people would be asleep then. While stabbing her with the scissors, he “was purposeful[ly] trying to kill her and would not let her up.” After choking her with the lamp cord, “[o]nce [he] felt she was dead [he] picked her up by [the] neck with the cord and kept choking her for three minutes ... to make sure she was dead.” He ended his statement by saying that he killed the victim and her baby, he felt no regret and no remorse, and “I don't give a f* * * who cares what I did because only God can judge me.” The statement reflected the intentional nature of his crime without a hint of defendant having acted under the influence of EED.
This testimony was insufficient to support a jury finding that defendant established, by a preponderance of the evidence, the elements of the EED defense ( see People v. Walker, 64 N.Y.2d at 743, 485 N.Y.S.2d 978, 475 N.E.2d 445). Defendant did not provide any proof of his mental state at the time of the commission of the crime, stating—despite having taken the witness stand—that he did not want to talk about what happened in regard to the killing itself. Counsel asked questions to elicit defendant's mental state at the time of the commission of the crime, but defendant did not respond and instead avoided that topic. While his testimony could be used to support a lack of intent because he said he could not remember, there was ample other evidence of his intent to kill the victim. His testimony may have shown that he acted on jealousy or anger when he killed her. Although those emotions may sometimes serve as a reasonable explanation for the presence of EED, they are not alone indicative of any mental infirmity and “are not equivalent to the loss of self-control generally associated with that defense” ( id. at 743, 485 N.Y.S.2d 978, 475 N.E.2d 445;see People v. Ross, 34 A.D.3d 1124, 1126, 826 N.Y.S.2d 769 [2006],lvs. denied8 N.Y.3d 879, 884, 832 N.Y.S.2d 492, 497, 864 N.E.2d 622, 627 [2007];People v. Knights, 109 A.D.2d 910, 911, 486 N.Y.S.2d 377 [1985];compare People v. Harris, 95 N.Y.2d at 320, 717 N.Y.S.2d 82, 740 N.E.2d 227 [the defendant confessed that he “ ‘couldn't stop’ his attack” and “ ‘it was like [he] was looking at a movie [and] didn't have any control’ at the time”]; People v. Moye, 66 N.Y.2d 887, 890, 498 N.Y.S.2d 767, 489 N.E.2d 736 [1985] [the defendant stated that “ ‘something snapped’ inside him,” he “went ‘bananas' ” and “needed help,” indicating loss of self-control] ).
Even viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to defendant, as we must when considering if the EED defense should have been charged to the jury ( see People v. Harris, 95 N.Y.2d at 320, 717 N.Y.S.2d 82, 740 N.E.2d 227), the record does not support the defense and charging it “would have invited the jury to impermissibly speculate as to the defendant's state of mind at the time of the [homicide]” ( People v. Walker, 64 N.Y.2d at 743, 485 N.Y.S.2d 978, 475 N.E.2d 445;see People v. Roche, 98 N.Y.2d at 76, 745 N.Y.S.2d 775, 772 N.E.2d 1133;People v. Setless, 289 A.D.2d 708, 709–710, 734 N.Y.S.2d 658 [2001],lv. denied98 N.Y.2d 640, 744 N.Y.S.2d 769, 771 N.E.2d 842 [2002] ). Defendant's own conduct in refusing to answer questions and to testify regarding the occurrence of the homicide itself prevented the jury from determining his state of mind during the commission of the crime. As County Court's alternative ground was a proper basis for denying the charge, and the evidentiary problems that were the basis of that ground were beyond counsel's control, counsel's error in failing to give notice was irrelevant; defendant would not have received the EED defense charge even had notice been given. While our state standard for meaningful representation does not require a full showing of prejudice such as a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different without counsel's errors, reversal will be warranted where the inadequacy of counsel deprives a defendant of a fair trial ( see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 155–156, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 [2005] ). Here, defendant's testimony and behavior on the witness stand resulted in the denial of the EED defense charge, independent of any errors by counsel. Accordingly, counsel's failure to give notice, while error, did not deprive defendantof a fair trial and does not entitle defendant to a new trial.
Defendant appears to contend that counsel was ineffective for raising the EED defense during opening statements and stating that County Court would charge the jury with that defense, without counsel being able to prove the defense. Setting aside the notice issue, counsel stated during a colloquy that he anticipated that defendant would “testify to a momentary lapse of control, momentary loss of control.” Thus, counsel believed that he would elicit evidence sufficient to support an EED defense, and the lack of proof was due to defendant's failure or refusal to provide testimony as to his own mental state at the time the crime was committed.
Counsel also asked open-ended questions of a police investigator during cross-examination that elicited testimony that defendant “sold drugs to support himself and [the victim].” Based on some later questioning, it appears that counsel may have had some purpose for allowing testimony concerning defendant's prior drug dealing, as defendant had discussed that topic with the police. This testimony may have been part of counsel's strategy in pursuing the EED defense by showing—as noted by counsel in his opening statement—that defendant was self-destructing, implying that his mental state must have been affected for him to tell the police that he had committed not only this murder, but other murders—none of which could be verified by the police—and different crimes such as selling drugs. As this questioning may have been part of a legitimate strategy, we cannot find counsel ineffective for allowing that testimony into evidence ( see id. at 154, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213; People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563, 566, 721 N.Y.S.2d 577, 744 N.E.2d 112 [2000];People v. Wiltshire, 96 A.D.3d 1227, 1229, 947 N.Y.S.2d 199 [2012] ).
Counsel did err in failing to object to testimony by the victim's sister that defendant “forced [the victim] to have sex with him” at times. As this prior crime evidence was hearsay, prejudicial and unrelated to any issue in the case, it was inadmissible ( see People v. Chapman, 54 A.D.3d 507, 511, 862 N.Y.S.2d 660 [2008] ). This error alone is insufficient to constitute ineffective assistance ( see People v. Wiltshire, 96 A.D.3d at 1229, 947 N.Y.S.2d 199). Counsel effectively represented defendant by making pretrial motions, representing defendant at a suppression hearing addressing his statements, having defendant examined by a mental health professional, cross-examining the witnesses at trial and urging the jury to find that defendant did not have the proper mens rea to commit intentional murder—despite defendant's behavior during trial of leaving the witness stand, both during direct examination and cross-examination, before questioning was completed, and his rants several times telling the jury that he knew he was going to be convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life. Viewing counsel's actions in their totality, even when considering this questioning error along with counsel's failure to provide notice of intent to offer psychiatric evidence, counsel's errors did not rise to such an egregious level as to deprive defendant of meaningful representation ( see People v. Cummings, 16 N.Y.3d at 785, 919 N.Y.S.2d 500, 944 N.E.2d 1139).
Considering defendant's brutal murder of a woman that he knew was pregnant, his prior criminal history and his lack of remorse, we do not find the sentence harsh or excessive.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.