CoA Cheryl Santiago Decision

8/12/2019 CoA Cheryl Santiago Decision

1/23

=================================================================Thi s opi ni on i s uncor r ect ed and subj ect t o r evi si on bef or epubl i cat i on i n the New Yor k Repor t s.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -No. 22The Peopl e &c. , Respondent , v.Cher yl Sant i ago, Appel l ant .

Mal vi na Nat hanson, f or appel l ant .Ki r st en A. Rappl eyea, f or r espondent .

PI GOTT, J . :

On t hi s appeal , def endant Cher yl Sant i ago cont ends t hat

her conf essi on t o t he pol i ce f ol l owi ng t he deat h of her st ep-

daught er was i nsuf f i ci ent l y cor r obor at ed by i ndependent evi dence

at t r i al t o suppor t her convi ct i on of mansl aught er i n t he second

degr ee. Secondl y, she argues t hat Count y Cour t abused i t s

- 1 -


2/23

- 2 - No. 22

di scret i on i n admi t t i ng cer t ai n l et t er s i nt o evi dence t hat wer e

not suf f i ci ent l y r edact ed. Fi nal l y, she ar gues t hat she was

deni ed ef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel when her t r i al counsel

f ai l ed t o obj ect t o a Power Poi nt di spl ay dur i ng t he Peopl e' s

summat i on. A r eci t at i on of t he f act s under l yi ng def endant ' s

convi ct i on i s necessar y t o addr ess each of t hese i ssues.

I .

When def endant mar r i ed Santos Sant i ago i n J anuar y 2007,

her husband had a one- year - ol d daught er , J ust i ce, f r om a pr i or

r el at i onshi p. Sant os and t he chi l d' s mot her shar ed cust ody,

Sant os havi ng physi cal cust ody on al t er nate weeks. The

arr angement was not t o def endant ' s l i ki ng; she was descr i bed as

somewhat al oof f r om t he chi l d and woul d compl ai n t o Sant os t hat

he spent t oo much t i me wi t h hi s daught er . She conceal ed t he

chi l d' s ver y exi st ence f r om her par ent s. Sant os wor ked l ong

hour s, and, as he l at er r ecal l ed, i t par t i cul ar l y aggr avat ed

def endant t hat he woul d f al l asl eep dur i ng t he pr ocess of put t i ng

hi s daught er t o bed; af t er he awoke, he woul d tel l def endant t hat

he was t oo t i r ed t o spend t i me wi t h her and woul d go back t o

sl eep. I n t he f al l of 2007, Sant os, t r yi ng t o appease def endant ,

asked her t o st ar t put t i ng t he chi l d t o bed.

On Oct ober 23, 2007, def endant and Santos quar r el ed

over what can be descr i bed as def endant ' s per cept i on t hat t he

chi l d' s pr esence i nt er f er ed wi t h t hei r mar r i ed l i f e. The quar r el

was descr i bed as i nt ense enough t hat def endant went i nt o t he

- 2 -


3/23

- 3 - No. 22

coupl e' s bedr oom and remai ned t her e f or t wo hour s wi t hout

speaki ng t o Sant os.

When i t was t i me f or t he chi l d t o go t o bed t hat

eveni ng, def endant t ook her i nt o t he bedr oom wher e she sl ept , and

l ay down next t o her . The chi l d was babbl i ng and r esi st i ng

sl eep. Lat er , def endant emer ged f r om t he bedr oom and t ol d Sant os

t hat t he chi l d was "dozi ng of f . "

When def endant and Sant os ret i r ed shor t l y af t er 11

p. m. , Sant os coul d see hi s daught er ' s out l i ne i n her cot , but he

di d not appr oach t he cot because he had woken hi s daught er i n t he

past by doi ng so. J ust af t er 5 a. m. t he next mor ni ng, Sant os

awoke. He gl anced over at t he chi l d as he pr epared t o l eave t he

apar t ment , but saw not hi ng untoward. Sant os not i ced one unusual

t hi ng, however ; unl i ke on other morni ngs, def endant got up t o say

goodbye t o hi m and, when he l ef t , doubl e- l ocked t he door behi nd

hi m.

About 30 seconds af t er Sant os l ef t , he r ecei ved a cal l

f r om def endant on hi s cel l phone, t el l i ng hi m J ust i ce was not

movi ng. Santos rushed back t o t he apar t ment , wher e he f ound hi s

daught er ' s l i f el ess body; r i gor mor t i s had set i n. A pl ast i c bag

l ay near t he chi l d. Def endant t ol d a gr i ef - st r i cken Sant os that

she had r emoved t he pl ast i c bag f r om J ust i ce' s hands. Sant os

cal l ed 911. An EMT arr i ved and conf i r med t hat J ust i ce was dead.

Def endant and Sant os were i nt ervi ewed separat el y. At

f i r st , def endant t ol d t he pol i ce t hat she had di scover ed t he

- 3 -


4/23

- 4 - No. 22

chi l d, l i f el ess, and had f ound t he pl ast i c bag under her cheek.

However , i n a l at er st at ement t o the pol i ce, gi ven t he eveni ng of

Oct ober 24, def endant made a conf essi on. She t ol d an

i nvest i gator t hat t he pr evi ous ni ght she had become " f r ust r at ed"

because she want ed t he chi l d to go t o sl eep, and pl aced her hands

over t he chi l d' s mout h and nose f or about 30 seconds, " t o qui et

her . " Def endant sai d t hat J ust i ce had not st r uggl ed and she

t hought t he chi l d had f al l en asl eep. The next morni ng, accor di ng

t o def endant ' s account , she checked on t he chi l d, f ound her col d

and st i f f , and pani cked; she gr abbed a pl ast i c bag and pl aced i t

under t he chi l d' s mout h t o make i t appear t hat t he bag had

smot hered her dur i ng t he ni ght . Def endant ' s st at ement was

r educed t o a wr i t i ng, whi ch she r evi ewed, edi t ed, and si gned.

Def endant al so made a si mi l ar vi deot aped st at ement .

That day, an aut opsy by Dr . Denni s Chute, Deput y

Medi cal Exami ner of Dut chess Count y, r eveal ed t hat J ust i ce had

been a heal t hy chi l d and r ul ed out death as a r esul t of ast hma or

br onchi al i ssues. Dr . Chut e bel i eved t hat t he chi l d had di ed t he

pr evi ous eveni ng; af t er r evi ewi ng def endant ' s st atement s, Dr .

Chut e compl et ed hi s r epor t , concl udi ng t hat J ust i ce had di ed of

asphyxi a resul t i ng f r om suf f ocat i on.

I I .

Def endant was ar r est ed and hel d at Dut chess County

J ai l . There, mal e and f emal e pr i soner s wer e abl e t o communi cat e

t hr ough a f ence separ at i ng t hei r r espect i ve r ecr eat i on yar ds, and

- 4 -


5/23

- 5 - No. 22

by wr i t i ng l et t er s t o one another . Def endant bef r i ended an

i nmat e named Mi chael Br yant , and they began a romant i c

corr espondence. Some of def endant ' s l ong l et t er s t o Br yant

cont ai ned passages t hat wer e over t l y sexual . Accor di ng t o

Br yant , def endant , i n a subsequent conver sat i on, when asked about

her cr i mi nal pr osecut i on, admi t t ed t hat she had ki l l ed J ust i ce,

sayi ng " I di d i t , I di d i t . "

Meanwhi l e, def endant had been charged wi t h murder i n

t he second degr ee. At a Hunt l ey hear i ng i n Count y Cour t ,

def endant ' s mot i on t o suppr ess her st at ement s was deni ed.

At def endant ' s t r i al , t he Peopl e pr oceeded on t he

t heory t hat def endant had cover ed J ust i ce' s mout h and nose f or

sever al mi nut es, wi t h t he i nt ent t o cause her death. Bot h Sant os

Sant i ago and Mi chael Br yant t est i f i ed agai nst def endant , t he

l at t er t el l i ng t he j ur y of def endant ' s pr i son yar d admi ssi on.

The j ury al so vi ewed t he vi deotaped st at ement by def endant .

The Peopl e i nt r oduced def endant ' s l et t er s t o Br yant on

t he gr ound that t hey showed t hat t he rel at i onshi p bet ween the t wo

i nmates was one of mut ual t r ust and conf i dence. Fol l owi ng

obj ect i on by def ense counsel t hat t he l et t er s wer e mor e

pr ej udi ci al t han pr obat i ve, Count y Cour t r edact ed them, r emovi ng

cer t ai n passages t hat t he cour t bel i eved "coul d be vi ewed by t he

j ury as undul y prej udi ci al as t o t he Def endant ' s char act er or

l i f est yl e. " Bef or e t he r edact ed l et t er s wer e r ead t o t he j ur y,

def ense counsel r enewed hi s obj ect i on. However , def ense counsel

- 5 -


6/23

- 6 - No. 22

di d not si ngl e out any speci f i c passages of a sexual nat ur e as

bei ng pr ej udi ci al , or expr essl y ask f or f ur t her passages t o be

exci sed af t er t he f i r st r ound of r edact i ons. Count y Cour t deni ed

def ense counsel ' s obj ect i on and def endant ' s r edact ed l et t er s t o

Br yant were r ead t o the j ur y.

The j ury al so heard medi cal t est i mony. Dr . Chut e, t he

cor oner , t est i f i ed t hat i t woul d have t aken f our t o si x mi nut es

f or a chi l d of J ust i ce' s si ze and age t o suf f ocat e and t hat "i f

t here was evi dence t hat J ust i ce' s mout h and nose were cover ed by

a hand . . . f or up t o f our t o si x mi nut es, " t hat woul d "be

consi st ent wi t h [ Dr . Chut e' s] f i ndi ngs as t o cause of deat h. "

Sever al post mor t em phot ogr aphs of t he chi l d wer e admi t t ed i nt o

evi dence. Dr . Mi chael Baden, a boar d- cer t i f i ed pat hol ogi st ,

t est i f i ed t hat a chi l d of J ust i ce' s age and si ze woul d pul l away

a l oose obj ect such as a pl ast i c bag i n f r ont of her f ace

t hat was obst r uct i ng her br eathi ng.

Af t er t he Peopl e rest ed, def ense counsel moved f or

di smi ssal on t he gr ound, among ot her s, t hat t he Peopl e had f ai l ed

t o pr ovi de cor r oborat i on of t he st atement s made by def endant t o

t he pol i ce. Count y Cour t deni ed t he mot i on.

Def endant t hen t est i f i ed i n her own def ense. She

i nsi st ed t hat her f i r st st at ement t o t he pol i ce was t r ue and t hat

t he subsequent st at ement i n whi ch she conf essed t o put t i ng her

hand over J ust i ce' s mout h and nose was f al se. She al so deni ed

conf essi ng her gui l t t o Br yant .

- 6 -


7/23

- 7 - No. 22

A boar d- cer t i f i ed pat hol ogi st , Dr . J ef f r ey Hubbar d,

t est i f i ed f or t he def ense, st at i ng t hat he coul d not det er mi ne

t he cause of J ust i ce' s deat h wi t h any reasonabl e degr ee of

medi cal cer t ai nt y.

When t he def ense r est ed, def ense counsel di d not r enew

hi s mot i on t o di smi ss on t he gr ound of i nsuf f i ci ent cor r obor at i on

of def endant ' s conf essi on. Nor di d def ense counsel make a

gener al mot i on t o di smi ss.

I I I .

Dur i ng t he Peopl e' s summat i on, t he pr osecut or

al l udi ng t o Dr . Chut e' s di scussi on of t he l engt h of t i me i t woul d

have t aken f or a chi l d of J ust i ce' s age and si ze t o suf f ocat e

sai d t o t he j ur y: "[ I ] f t her e' s any quest i on i n your mi nd how

l ong si x mi nut es t ake, t ake a l ook at t hi s. " The j ur y was t hen

shown, f or a dur at i on of si x mi nut es, a Power Poi nt pr esent at i on

t hat consi st ed of a ser i es of sl i des usi ng a post mor t em

phot ogr aph of J ust i ce. The sl i des changed at r egul ar i nt er val s,

wi t h each successi ve sl i de pr ogr essi vel y f adi ng, unt i l t he f i nal

sl i de was ent i r el y whi t e, t hus el i mi nat i ng t he i mage of J ust i ce.

Some of t he sl i des were accompani ed by capt i ons: "one and a hal f

t o two mi nut es, st r uggl e ends, " " f our mi nut es, br ai n deat h

occur s, " and " f our and a hal f t o si x mi nut es, car di ac deat h. "

Def ense counsel di d not obj ect t o t he sl i des.

I n i t s j ur y char ge, Count y Cour t gave t he j ur or s t he

f ol l owi ng l i mi t i ng i nst r uct i on concer ni ng def endant ' s l et t er s t o

- 7 -


8/23

- 8 - No. 22

Br yant : "The Peopl e want t o of f er t hese l et t er s as evi dence t hat

t he Def endant knew Mi chael Br yant and t hat her r el at i onshi p wi t h

hi m was such t hat she woul d conf i de i n hi m. That i s t he pur pose

f or whi ch I . . . al l owed t he l et t er s i nt o evi dence. . . . The

l et t er s ar e not t o be vi ewed by you wi t h r egar ds t o the

Def endant ' s char act er or her [ l i f est yl e] . The l et t er s ar e t o be

vi ewed by you onl y f or t he pur pose I ' ve expl ai ned. "

Count y Cour t i nst r uct ed the j ur y wi t h respect t o mur der

i n t he second degr ee, mansl aught er i n t he second degr ee, and

cr i mi nal l y negl i gent homi ci de. The j ur y f ound def endant gui l t y

of murder i n t he second degree, and she was sent enced

accor di ngl y.

I V.

The Appel l at e Di vi si on f ound t hat t he j ury ver di ct of

second- degr ee mur der was agai nst t he wei ght of t he evi dence,

r easoni ng t hat al t hough "t he evi dence, pr oper l y wei ghed, pr oves

beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat t he def endant pl aced her hand over

t he vi ct i m' s mout h and nose, and t hat t hi s act caused t he

i nf ant ' s deat h, i t does not pr ove beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat

i t was her consci ous obj ect i ve t o ki l l t he i nf ant vi ct i m . . .

The evi dence suppor t s a f i ndi ng t hat t he def endant act ed

r eckl essl y i n cover i ng t he i nf ant vi ct i m' s nose and mout h i n a

mi sgui ded ef f or t t o qui et t he vi ct i m i n or der f or her t o sl eep,

but not as a par t of a cal cul at ed ef f or t t o ki l l t he i nf ant

vi ct i m" ( 97 AD3d 704, 706 [ 2d Dept 2012] ) . However , t he

- 8 -


9/23


10/23

- 10 - No. 22

cr i me t oget her wi t h t he conf essi on must be suf f i ci ent t o

est abl i sh def endant ' s gui l t beyond a r easonabl e doubt " ( Peopl e v

Li psky, 57 NY2d 560, 571 [ 1982] [ i nt er nal quotat i on marks and

ci t at i ons omi t t ed] [ emphasi s added] ) . The r ul e, l ong-

est abl i shed, i s t hat t he addi t i onal evi dence must be evi dence

t hat t he char ged cr i me was commi t t ed, and need not be evi dence

t hat t he cr i me was commi t t ed by def endant ( see i d. ; see al so

Peopl e v Cuozzo, 292 NY 85, 91- 92 [1944] ; Peopl e v Roach, 215 NY

592, 601 [ 1915] ) .

The Peopl e r espond t hat def endant f ai l ed t o preser ve

t he cor r obor at i on ar gument . At t he end of t he Peopl e' s case,

def ense counsel moved t o di smi ss on t he gr ound t hat def endant ' s

conf essi on was not cor r oborat ed under CPL 60. 50, but he di d not

r enew t he mot i on when t he def ense rest ed. The Peopl e ci t e our

pr ecedent t hat i f a t r i al j udge deni es def endant ' s mot i on t o

di smi ss at t he cl ose of t he Peopl e' s case, and t he def endant does

not r enew hi s mot i on t o di smi ss af t er def endant has pr esent ed hi s

case, def endant wi l l be consi der ed to have "wai ved revi ew of t he

mi d- t r i al deci si on" t o deny t he mot i on t o di smi ss ( Peopl e v

Hi nes, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001] ; see al so Peopl e v Kol upa, 13 NY3d

786, 787 [ 2009] ; Peopl e v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [ 2006] ; Peopl e v

Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 273 [ 2004] ) . 1

1We have carved out an except i on t o t he Hi nes r ul e,

appl i cabl e when t he def endant makes a general mot i on t o di smi ssaf t er t he cl ose of hi s pr oof . I f , i n such a case, t he t r i alcour t makes "speci f i c f i ndi ngs as t o cor r obor at i on, " t hen we

- 10 -


11/23

- 11 - No. 22

For her par t , def endant asks us to over r ul e Hi nes. I n

t he al t er nat i ve, def endant ar gues t hat def ense counsel ' s f ai l ur e

t o r enew hi s mot i on t o di smi ss based on i nsuf f i ci ent

cor r obor at i on of t he conf essi on amount s t o i nef f ect i ve assi st ance

of counsel , ei t her al one or i n combi nat i on wi t h ot her er r or s.

Cont r ar y to def endant ' s ar gument s, i t i s cl ear t hat a

mot i on t o di smi ss on t he gr ound of l ack of cor r obor at i on woul d

have been pr oper l y deni ed. There was i ndependent evi dence t hat a

cr i me occur r ed, cor r obor at i ng def endant ' s conf essi on. The j ur y

hear d t est i mony showi ng t hat J ust i ce' s deat h by suf f ocat i on

i nvol ved a human agent ot her t han her sel f . I n par t i cul ar , Dr .

Baden t est i f i ed t hat J ust i ce, a heal t hy chi l d, woul d not have

al l owed her sel f t o suf f ocat e f r om a l oose obj ect such as a

pl ast i c bag obst r uct i ng her br eat hi ng, but , gi ven her age and

si ze, woul d have pushed i t asi de.

I t f ol l ows t hat def endant ' s f ai l ur e t o r enew hi s mot i on

t o di smi ss di d not amount t o i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel .

We need not addr ess def endant ' s corr oborat i on chal l enge f ur t her ,

or deci de whet her t he Hi nes r ul e appl i es her e.

VI .

Def endant ' s second chal l enge r el at es t o t he l et t er s she

consi der t he quest i on of cor r obor at i on t o have been "expr essl ydeci ded" by t he t r i al cour t wi t hi n t he meani ng of CPL 470. 05 ( 2) ,even i f def endant di d not expr essl y move to di smi ss on t hatgr ound ( Peopl e v Pr ado, 4 NY3d 725, 726 [ 2004] ) . But Prado doesnot appl y i n t hi s case, because def ense counsel di d not make agener al mot i on t o di smi ss.

- 11 -


12/23

- 12 - No. 22

wr ote t o Br yant i n pr i son. She argues t hat Count y Cour t abused

i t s di scr et i on when i t admi t t ed i n evi dence over t l y sexual

por t i ons of t he l et t er s.

Def ense counsel at t empted t o persuade County Cour t t hat

t he l et t er s i n gener al wer e pr ej udi ci al and not pr obat i ve, and he

r enewed t hi s obj ect i on, wi t h no success, bef or e t he l et t er s wer e

r ead t o t he j ur y. However , def ense counsel di d not si ngl e out

t he speci f i c passages of a sexual nat ur e t hat def endant now

argues were wr ongl y admi t t ed. Havi ng achi eved cert ai n

r edact i ons, he di d not ask f or r edact i on of t he sexual passages

t hat def endant now argues were wr ongl y admi t t ed. Hence

def endant ' s second chal l enge was not pr eserved f or our r evi ew.

Agai n, def endant r ai ses t he al t er nat i ve ar gument t hat

t he f ai l ur e t o pr eser ve t hi s i ssue const i t ut ed i nef f ecti ve

assi st ance of counsel . Under t he ci r cumst ances, keepi ng i n mi nd

t hat def endant succeeded i n achi evi ng cer t ai n r edact i ons as wel l

as a pr oper l i mi t i ng i nst r uct i on t hat t he j ur y must be pr esumed

t o have obeyed ( see e. g. Peopl e v Mor r i s, 21 NY3d 588, 598

[ 2013] ; Peopl e v Davi s, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [ 1983] ) , we cannot

concl ude def ense counsel pr ovi ded l ess t han meani ngf ul

r epr esent at i on wi t h r espect t o t he i ssue of t he l et t er s ( see

gener al l y Peopl e v Bal di , 54 NY2d 137, 147 [ 1981] ) . Moreover ,

gi ven t he l i mi t i ng i nst r uct i on, t he r esul t of def endant ' s appeal

woul d not have been di f f erent had def ense counsel pr eser ved t he

i ssue by aski ng f or f ur t her r edact i ons ( see gener al l y St r i ckl and

- 12 -


13/23

- 13 - No. 22

v Washi ngt on, 466 US 668, 669 [ 1984] ) .

VI I .

The f i nal i ssue i s whether def ense counsel was

i nef f ect i ve f or not obj ect i ng to t he Peopl e' s summat i on.

Def endant cont ends t hat t he pr osecut or ' s use of sl i des had no

pur pose ot her t han t o engender a f eel i ng of horr or and wer e no

part of any l egi t i mate argument . She argues t hat def ense

counsel ' s f ai l ur e t o obj ect was, on i t s own, so egr egi ous and

pr ej udi ci al a f ai l i ng as t o depr i ve her of ef f ecti ve assi st ance

of counsel .

I n summat i on, "counsel i s t o be af f or ded ' t he wi dest

l at i t ude by way of comment , denunci at i on or appeal i n advocat i ng

hi s cause' " ( Peopl e v Ashwal , 39 NY2d 105, 109 [ 1976] , quot i ng

Wi l l i ams v Br ookl yn E. R. Co. , 126 NY 96, 103 [ 1891] ) , t hough

wi t hi n l i mi t s t hat ar e pr i nci pal l y t hose of r el evance ( see

Ashwal , 39 NY2d at 109- 110) . Had def ense counsel obj ect ed, t he

t r i al cour t woul d have had t he oppor t uni t y t o deci de whet her t he

chal l enged aspect of t he Power Poi nt pr esent at i on const i t ut ed "a

f ai r comment on t he evi dence" or was i nst ead " t ot al l y i r r el evant

t o any l egi t i mat e i ssue pr esent ed at t he t r i al " ( Ashwal , 39 NY2d

at 110; see e. g. Peopl e v Gr een, 183 AD2d 617, 618 [ 1st Dept

1992] ) .

Whet her t he t r i al cour t woul d have been r equi r ed by t he

l aw t o sust ai n an obj ect i on t o t he ent i r et y of t he Power Poi nt

pr esent at i on i s not cl ear f r om t hi s recor d. The Peopl e cont end

- 13 -


14/23

- 14 - No. 22

t hat t he pr esent at i on of t he phot ogr aph, f or a dur at i on of si x

mi nut es, dur i ng whi ch t i me capt i ons i l l ust r at i ng poi nt s of

medi cal t est i mony wer e al so di spl ayed, was r el evant t o t he

t est i mony hear d by t he j ur y t hat i t woul d have t aken up t o si x

mi nut es f or J ust i ce t o di e of suf f ocat i on. Def endant does not

di sput e t hat t he post mor t em phot ogr aph i t sel f was pr oper l y

admi t t ed at t r i al ( see Peopl e v Pobl i ner , 32 NY2d 356, 369

[ 1973] ) . The sl i des depi ct i ng an al r eady admi t t ed phot ogr aph,

wi t h capt i ons accur at el y t r acki ng pr i or medi cal t est i mony, mi ght

r easonabl y be regar ded as r el evant and f ai r , al bei t dr amat i c,

comment ar y on t he medi cal evi dence, and not si mpl y an appeal t o

t he j ur y' s emot i ons. The j ur y was bei ng asked t o deci de not onl y

whet her def endant ki l l ed J ust i ce, but al so whet her she i nt ended

t o do so, an i ssue to whi ch t he quest i on of how l ong she woul d

have had t o cover J ust i ce' s mout h and nose was cer t ai nl y

r el evant . On t he ot her hand, t he r el evance of t he vi sual devi ce

wher eby t he post mort em pi ct ur e f aded at 30- second i nt er val s over

a si x- mi nut e per i od wi t h each sl i de f adi ng more and more to

whi t e, and t he f i nal sl i de appear i ng t ot al l y whi t e i s di f f i cul t

t o di scer n. Thi s di d not show how J ust i ce' s deat h occur r ed nor

woul d i t have ai ded t he j ur y i n i t s f act - f i ndi ng f unct i on.

I f t he i ssue had been pr eserved f or our r evi ew by

t i mel y obj ect i on and had t he t r i al cour t r ul ed agai nst

def endant and t he i ssue reached our Cour t t hi s Cour t woul d have

had t he oppor t uni t y t o deci de whet her t he t r i al cour t abused i t s

- 14 -


15/23

- 15 - No. 22

di scr et i on and t he er r or r equi r ed a r ever sal of t he j udgment of

convi ct i on. But t hat di d not occur and t he obj ect i on t o t he

Power Poi nt pr esent at i on t hat def endant now r ai ses i s not so

"cl ear - cut " or " di sposi t i ve" an ar gument t hat i t s omi ssi on

amount ed t o i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel ( see Peopl e v

Howard, 2013 NY Sl i p Op 7824, 8- 9 [ 2013] ; Peopl e v Tur ner , 5 NY3d

476, 481 [2005] ) .

Accor di ngl y, t he or der of t he Appel l at e Di vi si on shoul d

be af f i r med.

- 15 -


16/23

Peopl e v Cher yl Sant i ago

No. 22

RI VERA, J . ( di ssent i ng) :

Def ense counsel ' s f ai l ur e t o obj ect t o t he pr osecut or ' s

use dur i ng summat i on of a Powerpoi nt pr esent at i on t hat

mani pul at ed t he evi dence, and was desi gned t o i nf l ame t he passi on

of t he j ur y i n or der t o engender pr ej udi ce agai nst t he def endant ,

const i t ut es an er r or of t he t ype t hat so t ai nt ed t he j ur y' s

del i ber at i ve pr ocess as t o deny def endant a f ai r t r i al . Gi ven

t he egr egi ous nat ur e of def ense counsel ' s er r or , I di sagr ee wi t h

t he maj or i t y' s concl usi on t hat def endant r ecei ved meani ngf ul

r epr esent at i on. Ther ef or e, I di ssent .

We have admoni shed t hat t he prosecut or ' s summat i on

"shoul d not seek t o l ead t he j ur y away f r om t he i ssues by dr awi ng

i r r el evant and i nf l ammatory concl usi ons whi ch have a deci ded

t endency t o pr ej udi ce t he j ur y agai nst t he def endant " ( Peopl e v

Ashwal , 39 NY2d 105, 110 [ 1976] , ci t i ng Peopl e v Posner , 273 NY

184, 190 [ 1937] ; see al so Peopl e v Levan, 295 NY 26, 36 [1945] ;

Peopl e v Carborano, 301 NY 39, 42 [ 1950] ; Berger v Uni t ed St at es,

295 US 78 [ 1935] ) . Wher e a prosecutor ' s summat i on "venture[ s]

wel l beyond t he evi dence and t he bounds of f ai r comment , " a

def endant i s depr i ved of a f ai r t r i al ( Peopl e v Ri back, 13 NY3d

416, 421, 423 [ 2009] ) . Hence, "def ense counsel ' s f ai l ur e t o

- 1 -


17/23


18/23


19/23

- 4 - No. 22

of t he moment s l eadi ng up t o the chi l d' s death because t he sl i de

i s a pi ct ur e of her cor pse, and as such i s of no assi st ance t o

t he j ur y' s under st andi ng of t he i ssues r el evant t o t he j ur y' s

f act- f i ndi ng pr ocess r el at ed t o causat i on or i nt ent . I f t hi s wer e

al l one coul d say about t he Power poi nt i t mi ght sur vi ve scr ut i ny.

However , t hi s i s not al l t hat can be sai d. For al t hough t he

photogr aph of t he chi l d' s body was i n evi dence, and coul d have

been ref erenced dur i ng summat i on, t he sl i de show mani pul at ed t hat

actual phot ogr aph, depi cti ng i t ser i at i m unt i l i t f aded t o a

whi t e scr een. I t i s quest i onabl e whet her t he f aded ver si ons of

t he phot ogr aph can even be consi dered t o have been pr oper l y i n

evi dence. 1 The pr osecut or ' s use of t hi s Power poi nt i mager y was

an i mpermi ss i bl e at t empt t o secur e a ver di ct based on emot i on and

r epul si on f or t he def endant , r at her t han f act s.

The Peopl e r el y on Peopl e v Cal davado and ot her cases

per mi t t i ng t he use of a Power poi nt pr esent at i on i n pr osecut i ons

i nvol vi ng Shaken Baby Syndr ome. However , t hese cases are

di st i ngui shabl e i n t hat t hey sanct i oned t he use of a sl i de show

1 I t i s t r ue t hat a post - mor t em phot ogr aph of a vi ct i m i sadmi ssi bl e " t o pr ove or di spr ove some mat er i al f act i n i ssue, "( Peopl e v Pobl i ner , 32 NY2d 356, 369 [ 1973] ) , but " [ p] hot ogr aphi cevi dence shoul d be excl uded . . . i f i t s sol e pur pose i s t oarouse the emot i ons of t he j ur y and t o pr ej udi ce t he def endant "

( i d. at 370, ci t i ng M. C. Dr ansf i el d, Annot at i on, Admi ssi bi l i t yof Phot ogr aph of Cor pse i n Pr osecut i on f or Homi ci de or Ci vi lAct i on f or Causi ng Deat h, 73 ALR2d 769; Peopl e v Ri al , 25 AD2d28, 30 [ 4th Dept 1966] ; Peopl e v Lewi s, 7 AD2d 732, 732 [ 2d Dept1958] ) . I t i s no l ess i mpor t ant dur i ng summat i on t o avoi d t heuse of enhanced photogr aphi c i mager y and i t s prej udi ce t o thedef endant .

- 4 -


20/23

- 5 - No. 22

t o ai d t he j ur y i n under st andi ng t he f or ce necessar y t o cause

deat h, as wel l as t he mechani cs and i nj ur i es associ at ed wi t h

Shaken Baby Syndr ome ( see Cal davado, 78 AD3d at 963; Sul ayao, 58

AD3d at 770; Mora, 57 AD3d at 572) . Here, t he Powerpoi nt di d not

addr ess a di f f i cul t t echni cal or medi cal i ssue. A si ngl e phot o

of a dead chi l d' s body, pr ogr essi vel y f adi ng i nt o obl i vi on,

depi ct ed not hi ng uni que about t he t i me i t t ook f or t he chi l d t o

di e of asphyxi at i on. I t si mpl y cannot be ar gued t hat j ur or s wer e

unabl e t o appr eci ate t he di f f er ence bet ween a f ew mi nut es- - t he

t i me t he pr osecut or ar gued def endant t ook t o ki l l t he chi l d- - and

30 seconds- - t he t i me def endant al l eged she cover ed the chi l d' s

mout h. Nei t her can t he capt i ons t hat accompani ed sever al of t he

sl i des be consi der ed f ai r comment ary on t he evi dence. I ndeed,

t hey pr ovi ded no comment ary what soever , but merel y r ei t erat ed t he

f or ensi c t est i mony of t he Peopl e' s exper t s r egar di ng t he poi nt s

at whi ch the chi l d woul d have exper i enced successi ve phases of

physi cal det er i or at i on. As such, t he capt i ons ser ved onl y t o

f ur t her dr amat i ze t he al r eady f l agr ant l y i nappr opr i at e emot i onal

di spl ay.

Wi t h t he ever i ncr easi ng use of t echnol ogy and ease

wi t h whi ch evi dence may be pr esent ed, even wi t h mi ni mal comput er

r esour ces, we must be mi ndf ul of t he i mpact of t echnol ogy on

event s i n t he cour t r oom, and, most especi al l y, on t he cr i mi nal

j ust i ce syst em. I t i s easy t o vi ew t he use of cer t ai n

t echnol ogi cal devi ces i n t he cour t r oom as mer el y anot her way of

- 5 -


21/23

- 6 - No. 22

pr esent i ng evi dence. We cannot f orget , however , t hat t echnol ogy

al so serves as a powerf ul t ool t o communi cat e i mages and concept s

i n ways t hat engage the j ur y di st i nct l y, and per haps mor e

ef f ect i vel y, t han t he spoken wor d. Thi s i s no l ess t r ue dur i ng

summat i on, when "any argument t hat drones on f or 5 or 10 mi nut es

on any one poi nt , r egar dl ess of how ef f ect i ve i t s cont ent i s,

wi l l l ose t he j ur y" ( Thomas A. Mauet , Tr i al Techni ques 394 [ 8t h

ed 2010] ) . Vi sual ai ds ar e a wel come r el i ef si nce " [ b] y t he end

of t he t r i al , j ur or s ar e l ooki ng f or new and f r esh ways of

r ecei vi ng evi dence and ar gument s" ( i d. ) . The use of t echnol ogy

at t he end of cl osi ng ar gument may be par t i cul ar l y power f ul . As

one comment at or has not ed, " [ t ] he r i ght t o t he f i nal wor d has a

psychol ogi cal i mpact t hat makes i t a f or ensi c pr i ze" ( Si egel , NY

Prac 397 at 692 [5t h ed 2011] ) .

Counsel ' s f ai l ur e t o obj ect cannot be expl ai ned as

mer el y t act i cal ( Bal di , 54 NY2d at 146; see al so Peopl e v Ri ver a,

71 NY2d 705, 708 [ 1988] ; Peopl e v Sat t er f i el d, 66 NY2d 796,

799- 800 [ 1985] ) . One i s hard- pr essed t o i magi ne any benef i t

def endant coul d reasonabl y der i ve f r om al l owi ng t he Peopl e t o

pr oceed wi t h t he pr esent at i on. I f an obj ect i on had been r ai sed

and sust ai ned, def ense counsel woul d have pr event ed t he j ur y f r om

vi ewi ng an undeni abl y power f ul depi ct i on of a dead chi l d cl ot hed

i n her paj amas, on t he f l oor next t o her bed, vul ner abl e, and

hel pl ess to save her sel f . The not i on t hat def ense counsel ' s

si l ence was desi gned t o expose t he weakness of t he Peopl e' s

- 6 -


22/23

- 7 - No. 22

evi dence i s ut t er l y unt enabl e; i f anyt hi ng, gi ven t he emot i onal

natur e of t he case, i t was al l t he more i ncumbent upon counsel t o

obj ect t o such a pr ej udi ci al appeal t o t he j ur y' s sympat hi es.

I ndeed, def ense counsel was wel l aware of t he i mpact t hat j ur or

emot i on coul d have on t he out come of t he case when he st at ed i n

summat i on t hat i t was "not easy" t o f i nd hi s cl i ent i nnocent i n

l i ght of t he f act t hat "t her e' s a chi l d who' s dead" ( Recor d, at

436) .

Furt her more, whi l e any def ense counsel may be concer ned

about i nt er r upt i ng t he pr osecut or ' s summat i on and as a

consequence " l ook[ i ng] bad t o t he j ur y, or dr aw[ i ng] r ebuke f r om

t he j udge" ( Fi sher , 18 NY3d at 970 [ Smi t h, J . di ssent i ng] ) , t he

f act i s t hat at t or neys do obj ect - - def ense counsel and pr osecut or s

al i ke ( see e. g. i d. at 969 [ not i ng t hat t he pr osecut or obj ect ed

t hr ee t i mes dur i ng t he def endant ' s summat i on] ) , and gener al l y

t hey must do so t o preserve argument s r egardi ng summat i on

( Compar e Ashwal , 39 NY2d at 108- 109 wi t h LaVal l e, 3 NY3d at 116;

see al so Maj or i t y Op. , at 14) . Her e, t her e was no di scer ni bl e

st r ategi c advant age i n st ayi ng qui et when def ense counsel was

f aced wi t h t he power f ul i magery pr esent ed by t he pr osecut or .

The maj or i t y concedes t hat t he Power poi nt f ai l ed t o

"ai d[ ] t he j ur y i n i t s f act - f i ndi ng f unct i on, " but , never t hel ess,

concl udes t hat t he obj ect i on to t he Power poi nt was "not so

' cl ear - cut ' or ' di sposi t i ve' " (Maj or i t y Op. , at 15) . I cannot

agr ee t hat i f , as t he maj or i t y stat es, t he summat i on f el l bel ow

- 7 -


23/23

- 8 - No. 22

our st andar d f or accept abl e summat i on comment ary, def ense

counsel ' s obj ect i on woul d have been an exer ci se i n f ut i l i t y. I t

i s si mpl y not a f ai r t r i al i f t he pr osecut i on put s bef or e t hej ury i n summat i on a "hor r i d and gruesome" por t r ayal of t he body

of t he chi l d, wher e t he Power poi nt "coul d onl y have served, under

t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, t o have ar oused t he passi ons and

t he r esent ment of t he j ur y agai nst def endant and t o have kept i t

f r om f ai r l y and obj ecti vel y consi der i ng t he i ssues bef or e i t "

( Peopl e v Wood, 79 NY2d 958, 961 [ 1992] [ Ti t one, J . di ssent i ng] ) .

Gi ven the st r ong potent i al f or t he summat i on Power poi nt

t o engender an emot i onal r esponse f r om t he j ur y, and t her eby

det r act f r om i t s dut y t o r ender a ver di ct based on t he f act s and

evi dence pr esent ed ( see Ashwal , 39 NY2d at 109) , def ense

counsel ' s f ai l ur e t o obj ect, const i t ut es i nef f ecti ve assi st ance

of counsel and deni ed def endant meani ngf ul r epr esent at i on ( Bal di ,

54 NY2d at 146- 147; see al so Peopl e v Benevent o, 91 NY2d 708, 712

[ 1998] ; Peopl e v Hobot , 84 NY2d 1021, 1022 [ 1995] ) .

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Or der af f i r med. Opi ni on by J udge Pi got t . J udges Gr af f eo, Read,Smi t h and Abdus- Sal aam concur . J udge Ri ver a di ssent s and vot est o r ever se i n an opi ni on i n whi ch Chi ef J udge Li ppman concur s.

Deci ded Februar y 25, 2014

- 8 -

CoA Cheryl Santiago Decision

Documents

Transcript of CoA Cheryl Santiago Decision