SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

410 

KA 10-01259 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBIE J. DRAKE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (JOSEPH G. FRAZIER OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

ROBIE J. DRAKE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Richard C.

Kloch, Sr., A.J.), rendered May 27, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree (two

counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial is granted. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment, convicting him

upon a jury verdict following a retrial, of two counts of murder in

the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). Defendant was convicted

in 1982 of killing two victims who were teenagers, and the judgment

was affirmed by this Court on appeal (People v Drake, 129 AD2d 963, lv

denied 70 NY2d 799). The United States Court of Appeals conditionally

granted defendant a writ of habeas corpus unless he was retried upon

the indictment within 90 days of its judgment (Drake v Portuondo, 553

F3d 230, 247-248 [2nd Cir]). We now reverse the judgment and grant

defendant a new trial.

As a preliminary matter, we conclude that defendant waived his

present contention concerning the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the

acting Supreme Court Justice who presided over the trial that was

purportedly conducted in County Court, inasmuch as he failed to raise

that objection in a timely manner (see People v Ott, 83 AD3d 1495,

1496, lv denied 17 NY3d 808; see generally People v Wilson, 14 NY3d

895, 897; People v Daniels, 86 AD3d 921, 922, lv denied 17 NY3d 715). 

The underlying facts are undisputed, and the sole issue at trial

was defendant’s intent to kill the victims. On a December night in

1981, the then-17-year-old defendant left his home armed with two
-2- 410 

KA 10-01259 

rifles and proceeded to walk to a junk yard to shoot at abandoned

cars. He observed a rusted vehicle, which was occupied by the

victims, parked in a secluded area near the junk yard. He fired at

the vehicle from a distance of no more than 15 feet, killing both

occupants. Defendant told the police that he did not see anyone in

the vehicle before he fired the rifle and that he thereafter attempted

to conceal the killings by moving the vehicle to another location. 

Defendant was observed by police officers on routine patrol when he

was attempting to place the body of the female victim in the trunk of

the vehicle, where he had previously placed the body of the male

victim.

We agree with defendant that the court committed reversible error

in refusing to preclude evidence of an uncharged crime, i.e.,

defendant’s alleged postmortem sexual assault on the female victim, in

order to establish his intent to kill the victims (see generally

People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 359). Because defendant presented

expert testimony refuting the People’s evidence that the female

victim’s body had been assaulted, there was a trial within a trial on

the issue whether an uncharged crime had actually been committed (see

generally People v Robinson, 68 NY2d 541, 549-550). That was error. 

The Second Circuit explicitly rejected the theory presented at the

first trial that defendant’s intent to kill the victims was the result

of a psychological syndrome known as picquerism, which the Second

Circuit referred to as a “fictive syndrome” (Drake, 553 F3d at 244). 

The court properly refused to permit any reference to that alleged

syndrome at the second trial. We therefore conclude that the evidence

of the alleged uncharged crime was not “directly relevant” to the

purpose for which it was offered, i.e., defendant’s intent to kill the

victims, and thus should have been precluded (People v Cass, 18 NY3d

553, 560). 

Even assuming, arguendo, that the court properly determined that

the evidence was directly relevant to establish defendant’s intent, we

nevertheless conclude that the court abused its discretion in

determining that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its

prejudicial effect (see People v Gillyard, 13 NY3d 351, 355; cf.

People v Gamble, 18 NY3d 386, 397-398). “Prejudice involves both the

nature of the [uncharged] crime, for the more heinous the uncharged

crime, the more likely that jurors will be swayed by it, and the

difficulty faced by the defendant in seeking to rebut the inference

from which the uncharged crime evidence brings into play” (Robinson,

68 NY2d at 549). Here, the uncharged crime is particularly heinous,

and defendant sought to rebut not only the inference that he intended

to kill the victims if he sexually abused the body of the female

victim, but he also was required to defend against the equivocal

evidence that the uncharged crime was actually committed. We thus

conclude that the “distance of the particular [disputed] fact from the

ultimate issue[] of the case” is too great to render the evidence of

the alleged uncharged crime more probative than prejudicial with

respect to the sole issue whether defendant intended to kill the

victims (People v Spotford, 85 NY2d 593, 597 [internal quotation marks

omitted]). We further conclude that the error is not harmless (cf.

Gillyard, 13 NY3d at 356; see generally People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d
-3- 410 

KA 10-01259 

230, 241-242). We therefore reverse the judgment and grant a new

trial. We reject defendant’s remaining contentions with respect to

additional alleged Molineux errors.

We also agree with defendant’s contention, raised in his pro se

supplemental brief, that the court committed a reversible mode of

proceedings error in failing to advise counsel of that part of a jury

note seeking guidance on how to proceed in the event that the jury was

unable to reach a unanimous verdict on count one and, in addition, in

failing to respond to that question (see People v Tabb, 13 NY3d 852,

853; see generally CPL 310.30; People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d 270, 276-277). 

We therefore reverse the judgment on that ground as well. 

In light of our determination to grant a new trial, we have also

addressed certain of defendant’s remaining contentions in the interest

of judicial economy. First, we reject defendant’s contentions with

respect to the alleged errors in charging the jury. We also reject

defendant’s contention that the court erred in determining that the

physician who conducted the autopsies of the victims was not available

to testify at the second trial by reason of illness or incapacity (see

CPL 670.10 [1]), and thus properly allowed her testimony from the

first trial to be read into the record. We reject defendant’s further

contention that the court abused its discretion in precluding his

expert from giving certain opinion testimony and in refusing to admit

in evidence a hand-drawn diagram prepared by that witness (see People

v Monk, 57 AD3d 1497, 1498, lv denied 12 NY3d 785; see generally

People v Carroll, 95 NY2d 375, 385). In light of our determination,

we decline to address defendant’s remaining contentions.

Entered: April 27, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court